Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation
Mary D. Salter AinsworthThis volume reports the methods and results of Ainsworth's Baltimore Longitudinal Study, arguing that individual differences in infant attachment are not random but organized strategies reflecting the history of care received. Through the Strange Situation procedure—a standardized laboratory sequence of separations and reunions—Ainsworth and her collaborators identified three primary patterns: secure (Group B), avoidant (Group A), and resistant/ambivalent (Group C). The central claim is that these patterns are not traits of the infant but properties of the relationship, predictable from maternal sensitivity and responsiveness observed at home.
Key Details
Related Books
View AllSimilar books from the same category, ranked by shared topics and reader engagement.
Key Insights — Read in 10 Minutes
What is the Strange Situation procedure, and what did it reveal about individual differences in attachment?
The Strange Situation is a standardized laboratory procedure involving eight episodes of brief separations and reunions between an infant and caregiver, with a stranger present in some episodes. Ainsworth and her collaborators used it to observe how one-year-olds organize their behavior around the caregiver's availability. The procedure revealed three primary patterns: secure (Group B), avoidant (Group A), and resistant/ambivalent (Group C) . The key finding was that these patterns are not random but organized strategies reflecting the infant's history of care. Infants classified as secure used the caregiver as a secure base, while avoidant infants minimized attachment behavior and resistant infants exaggerated it.
How did Ainsworth establish that attachment patterns are predictable from maternal behavior observed at home?
The Baltimore study combined naturalistic home observations with the laboratory Strange Situation. Ainsworth and her team observed mother-infant interaction at home during the first year, rating maternal sensitivity, acceptance, cooperation, and accessibility. They then compared these ratings with infants' Strange Situation classifications at twelve months. The central finding was that maternal sensitivity in the first quarter predicted later attachment security, and that patterns of caregiving were systematically associated with each classification . This established that attachment patterns are relational properties, not infant traits—they reflect the history of interaction between infant and caregiver, not something inherent in the child.
What are the three original attachment classifications, and how does each infant's behavior differ in the Strange Situation?
Group B (secure) infants actively seek proximity and contact upon reunion with the caregiver and are comforted by it, then return to exploration. Group A (avoidant) infants avoid or ignore the caregiver upon reunion, focusing on toys or the environment instead, and show little visible distress during separation. Group C (resistant/ambivalent) infants show ambivalence—seeking contact but resisting it when it occurs, and remaining distressed after reunion. These patterns were identified through multiple discriminant function analysis of twenty-two behavioral variables . The classifications were later validated by their associations with maternal behavior at home and their predictive links to later developmental outcomes .
How does this book relate to Ainsworth's earlier Uganda study, and what did the Baltimore study add?
Patterns of Attachment reports the Baltimore Longitudinal Study, which followed Ainsworth's naturalistic observations in Uganda. The Uganda study had identified the secure base phenomenon and the importance of maternal responsiveness to signals. Baltimore translated these insights into a standardized laboratory procedure—the Strange Situation—that could be replicated across samples . The book also addressed methodological issues common to longitudinal research, including age-appropriate assessment, quantifying behavior, and comprehending individual differences. Ainsworth and her students broke new ground by clarifying concepts and demonstrating the value of ethological methods. The Baltimore data provided the empirical foundation that made attachment theory testable and cumulative.
How was the three-category system later revised, and what prompted the addition of a fourth pattern?
The three original categories (secure, avoidant, resistant) were later supplemented by a fourth: disorganized/disoriented (Group D), identified by Mary Main and Judith Solomon in the late 1980s. Main and Solomon observed that some infants did not fit the A, B, or C patterns and showed conflicted, disoriented behaviors—freezing, stilling, contradictory approach-avoidance sequences. Bowlby had discussed potential pathways to disorganization in unpublished reflections, including motivational conflict between attachment and fear, safe haven ambiguity, and activation without assuagement . The disorganized category addressed a gap in the original classificatory system and became essential for research on maltreatment and later psychopathology.
What is the most common misunderstanding of the attachment classifications, and how does the book address it?
A persistent misunderstanding treats attachment classifications as measures of infant temperament or as fixed traits that determine later outcomes. Ainsworth and her collaborators explicitly frame the patterns as properties of the relationship, not the infant . The classifications reflect organized strategies for managing attachment needs in a specific caregiving context—they are not diagnoses or permanent labels. The book also emphasizes that attachment behavior and attachment are distinct: the classifications describe the organization of behavior in a particular situation, not a global judgment of the child or the caregiver. This relational framing is often lost when the categories are used as shorthand in public discourse.
Show 2 more insights
What is the publication and editorial history of Patterns of Attachment, and how has it been kept available?
Patterns of Attachment was originally published in 1978 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (391 pages) . It was reissued in 2015 as a Classic Edition by Psychology Press/Routledge with a new preface by Everett Waters, Inge Bretherton, and Brian E. Vaughn, and additional appendices including the Maternal Caregiving and Interaction Scales and supplementary statistical findings . The Classic Edition included a new appendix on secure base behavior at home . Its inclusion in the Psychology Press Classic Editions series reflected the book's continuing significance and ensured availability to new generations of students, researchers, and clinicians .
How has the Strange Situation's validity and the 'maternal sensitivity' hypothesis held up in subsequent research?
The Strange Situation became the most widely used measure of infant attachment, with classifications showing moderate stability and predicting later outcomes through childhood and adolescence . However, the maternal sensitivity hypothesis has been qualified. A meta-analysis by De Wolff and van IJzendoorn found that sensitivity predicted attachment security but with a modest effect size, and that the association was moderated by other factors . The Minnesota Longitudinal Study, conducted by Sroufe, Egeland, and colleagues, provided crucial validation by linking infant attachment to later developmental outcomes across multiple domains, including emotion regulation, peer relationships, and psychopathology . The Strange Situation remains foundational, but its limitations—including cultural variation and the need for multiple assessments—are now well recognized.
Wealthy Psyche is an intellectual archive. We do not host, distribute, or sell book copies — physical or digital. We provide structured knowledge to help you think better, faster.