psychology

Read the article, which is accessible below, and entitled Infant-Mother Attachment.There is also a form which you use to complete an Article Review of this third Article(Generic Model). I have also provided you a Model of what the final product or your submitted article review should look like. 

SELECTION 31

Infant-Mother Attachment
Mary D. S. Ainsworth (1979)

How babies form attachments to their parents is of interest to a variety of people, from parenLS 10 educators to psychologists.
Especially intriguing is the notion that there are different pallerns of attachment behavior shown by infants. A major contribu-
tion 10 our knowledge in this area has been provided by psychologist Mary D. S. Ainsworth.

Ainsworth (1913-1999) was born in Glendale, Ohio, and spent most of her childhood in Toronto. She earned her Ph.D. in
personality psychology in 1939 from the University of Toronto. She taught at Johns Hopkins University from 1956 to 1975.
when she became a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. Among her many publications in the area of develop.
meot and attachment is her 1967 book Infancy in Uganda: Infant Care and the Growth of Love Oohns Hopkins University Press).

This selection is from “Infant-Mother Attachment” was published in American Psychologist in 1979. In it, Ainsworth describes
her classic research on the development of attachment. Her “strange situation” is used to test the behavior patterns of infants, and
it has shown at least three distinguishable attachment patterns. Ainsworth argues that the infant’s crying is a key to detennining
how the infant-mother interaction will develop. As you read this selection, speculate about the long~termdevelopment of attach~
ment patterns. How will the secure. anxious, and avoidant babies relate to other people when they become adults?

Key Concept: infant attachment

APA Citation: Ainswonh, M. D. S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologist. 34, 932-937.

A owlby’s (1969) ethological-evolutionary attach-
U ment theory implies that it is an essential part of

the ground plan of the human species-as well as
that of many other species-for an infant to become at-
tached to a mother figure. This figure need not be the nat-
ural mother but can be anyone who plays the role of
principal caregiver. This ground plan is fulfilled, except
under extraordinary circumstances when the baby expe-
riences too little interaction with anyone caregiver to
support the formation of an attachment. The literature on
maternal deprivation describes some of these circum-
stances, but it cannot be reviewed here, except to note that
research has not yet specified an acceptable minimum
amount of interaction required for attachment formation.

However, there have been substantial recent advances
in the areas of individual differences in the way attach-
ment behavior becomes organized, differential experi-
ences associated with the various attachment patterns,
and the value of such patterns in forecasting subsequent
development. These advances have been much aided by
a standardized laboratory situation that was devised to
supplement a naturalistic, longitudinal investigation of

125

the development of infant-mother attachment in the first
year of life. This strange situation, as we entitled it, has
proved to be an excellent basis for the assessment of such
attachment in l-year-olds (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall,1978).

The assessment procedure consists of classification ac-
cording to the pattern of behavior shown in the strange sit-
uation, particularly in the episodes of reunion after
separation. Eight patterns were identified, but I shall deal
here only with the three main groups in which they fell-
Groups A, B, and C. To summarize, Group B babies use
their mothers as a secure base from which to explore in the
preseparation episodes; their attachment behavior is
greatly intensified by the separation episodes so that ex-
ploration diminishes and distress is likely; and in the re-
union episodes they seek contact with, proximity to, or at
least interaction with their mothers. Group C babies tend
to show some signs of anxiety even in the preseparation
episodes; they are intensely distressed by separation; and
in the reunion episodes they are ambivalent with the
mother, seeking close contact with her and yet resisting
contact or interaction. Group A babies, in sharp contrast,

126 Human Development

rarely cry in the separation episodes and, in the reunion
episodes, avoid the mother, either mingling proximity-
seeking and avoidant behaviors or ignoring her altogether.

COMPARISON OF STRANGE-
SITUATION BEHAVIOR AND

BEHAVIOR ELSEWHERE
Groups A, B, and C in our longitudinal sample were com-
pared in regard to their behavior at home during the first
year. Stayton and Ainsworth (1973) had identified a secu-
rity-anxiety dimension in a factor analysis of fourth-quar-
ter infant behavior. Group B infants were identified as
securely attached because they significantly more often
displayed behaviors characteristic of the secure pole of
this dimension, whereas both of the other groups were
identified as anxious because their behaviors were char-
acteristic of the anxious pole. A second dimension was
clearly related to close bodily contact, and this was im-
portant in distinguishing Group A babies from those in
the other two groups, in that Group A babies behaved less
positively to being held and yet more negatively to being
put down. The groups were also distinguished by two be-
haviors not included in the factor analysis-cooperative-
ness and anger. Group B babies were more cooperative
and less angry than either A or C babies; Group A babies
were even more angry than those in Group C. Clearly,
something went awry in the physical-contact interaction
Group A babies had with their mothers, and as I explain
below, I believe it is this that makes them especially prone
to anger.

Ainsworth et al. (1978) reviewed findings of other in-
vestigators who had compared A-B-C groups of l-year-
olds in terms of their behavior elsewhere. Their findings
regarding socioemotional behavior support the summary
just cited, and in addition three investigations using cog-
nitive measures found an advantage in favor of the se-
curelyattached.

COMPARISON OF INFANT STRANGE-
SITUATION BEHAVIOR WITH
MATERNAL HOME BEHAVIOR

Mothers of the securely attached (Group B) babies were,
throughout the first year, more sensitively responsive to
infant signals than were the mothers of the two anxiously
attached groups, in terms of a variety of measures span-
ning all of the most common contexts for mother-infant
interaction (Ainsworth et aI., 1978). Such responsiveness,
I suggest, enables an infant to form expectations, primi-
tive at first, that moderate his or her responses to events,
both internal and environmental. Gradually, such an in-
fant constructs an inner representation-or “working
model” (Bowlby, 1969)-of his or her mother as generally
accessible and responsive to him or her. Therein lies his or
her security. In contrast, babies whose mothers have dis-

regarded their signals, or have responded to them belat-
edly or in a grossly inappropriate fashion, have no basis
for believing the mother to be accessible and responsive;
consequently they are anxious, not knowing what to ex.
pect of her.

In regard to interaction in close bodily contact, the most
striking finding is that the mothers of avoidant (Group A)
babies all evinced a deep-seated aversion to it, whereas
none of the other mothers did. In addition they were more
rejecting, more often angry, and yet more restricted in the
expression of affect than were Group Bor C mothers. Main
(e.g., in press) and Ainsworth et al. (1978)have presented a
theoretical account of the dynamics of interaction of
avoidant babies and their rejecting mothers. This empha-
sizes the acute approach-avoidance conflict experienced
by these infants when their attachment behavior is acti-
vated at high intensity-a conflict stemming from painful
rebuff consequent upon seeking close bodily contact.
Avoidance is viewed as a defensive maneuver, lessening
the anxiety and anger experienced in the conflict situation
and enabling the baby nevertheless to remain within a tol-
erable range of proximity to the mother.

Findings and interpretations such as these raise the is-
sue of direction of effects. To what extent is the pattern of
attachment of a baby attributable to the mother’s behav-
ior throughout the first year, and to what extent is it at-
tributable to built-in differences in potential and
temperament? I have considered this problem elsewhere
(Ainsworth, 1979) and have concluded that in our sample
of normal babies there is a strong case to be made for dif-
ferences in attachment quality being attributable to ma-
ternal behavior. Two studies, however (Connell, 1976;
Waters, Vaughn, & Egeland, in press), have suggested
that Group C babies may as newborns be constitutionally
“difficult.” Particularly if the mother’s personality or life
situation makes it hard for her to be sensitively respon-
sive to infant cues, such a baby seems indeed likely to
form an attachment relationship of anxious quality.

Contexts of Mother-Infant Interaction
Of the various contexts in which mother-infant interac-
tion commonly takes place, the face-to-face situation has
been the focus of most recent research. By many (e.g.,
Walters & Parke, 1965), interaction mediated by distance
receptors and behaviors has been judged especially im-
portant in the establishment of human relationships. Mi-
croanalytic studies, based on frame-by-frame analysis of
film records, show clearly that maternal sensitivity to in-
fant behavioral cues is essential for successful pacing of
face-to-face interaction (e.g., Brazelton, Koslowski, &
Main, 1974; Stem, 1974). Telling evidence of the role ofvi-
sion, both in the infant’s development of attachment to
the mother and in the mother’s responsiveness to the in-
fant, comes from Fraiberg’s (1977) longitudinal study of
blind infants.

So persuasive have been the studies of interaction in-
volving distance receptors that interaction involving
close bodily contact has been largely ignored. The evolu-
tionary perspective of attachment theory attributes focal
importance to bodily contact. Other primate species rely
on the maintenance of close mother-infant contact as cru-
cial for infant survival. Societies of hunter-gatherers, liv-
ing much as the earliest humans did, are conspicuous for
very much more mother-infant contact than are western
societies (e.g., Konner, 1976). Blurton Jones (1972) pre-
sented evidence suggesting that humans evolved as a
species in which infants are carried by the mother and are
fed at frequent intervals, rather than as a species in which
infants are left for long periods, are cached in a safe place,
and are fed but infrequently. Bowlby (1969) pointed out
that when attachment behavior is intensely activated it is
close bodily contact that is specifically required. Indeed,
Bell and Ainsworth (1972) found that even with the
white, middle-class mothers of their sample, the most fre-
quent and the most effective response to an infant’s cry-
ing throughout the Iirst year was to pick up the baby. A
recent analysis of our longitudinal Iindings (Blehar,
Ainsworth, & Main, Note 1) suggests that mother-infant
interaction relevant to close bodily contact is at least as
important a context of interaction as face-to-face is, per-
haps especially in the Iirst few months of life. Within the
limits represented by our sample, however, we found
that it was how the mother holds her baby rather than how
much she holds him or her that affects the way in which
attachment develops.

In recent years the feeding situation has been neglected
as a context for mother-infant interaction, except insofar
as it is viewed as a setting for purely social. face-ta-face
interaction. Earlier, mother’s gratification or frustration
of infant inlerestto both psychoanalytically oriented and
social-learning research, on the assumption that a
mother’s gratification or frustration of infant instinctual
drives, or her role as a secondary reinforcer, determined
the nature of the baby’s tie to her. Such research yielded
no evidence that methods of feeding significantly affected
the course of infant development. although these nega-
tive Iindings seem almost certainly to reflect methodolog-
ical deficiencies (Caldwell, 1964). In contrast. we have
found that sensitive maternal responsiveness to infant
signals relevant to feeding is closely related to the secu-
rity or anxiety of attachment that eventually develops
(Ainsworth & Bell, 1969). Indeed, this analysis seemed to
redeline the meaning of “demand” feeding-letting in-
fant behavioral cues determine not only when feeding is
begun but also when it is terminated, how the pacing of
feeding proceeds, and how new foods are introduced.

Our Iindings do not permit us to attribute overriding
importance to anyone context of mother-infant interac-
tion. Whether the context is feeding, close bodily contact.
face-to-face interaction, or indeed the situation delined by
the infant’s crying, mother-infant interaction provides
the baby with opportunity to build up expectations of the

Mary D. 5. Ainsworth (1979) Inlam-Mother Attachmem 127

mother and, eventually, a working model of her as more
or less accessible and responsive. Indeed, our findings
suggest that a mother who is sensitively responsive to sig-
nals in one context tends also to be responsive to signals
in other contexts ….

Using the Mother as a Secure
Base from Which to Explore
Attachment theory conceives of the behavioral system
serving attachment as only one of several important sys-
tems, each with its own activators, terminators, predict-
able outcomes, and functions. During the prolonged
period of human infancy, when the protective function of
attachment is especially important, its interplay with ex-
ploratory behavior is noteworthy. The function of explo-
ration is learning about the environment-which is
particularly important in a species possessing much po-
tential for adaptation to a wide range of environments.
Attachment and exploration support each other. When
attachment behavior is intensely activated, baby tends to
seek proximity /contact rather than exploring; when at-
tachment behavior is at low intenSity a baby is free to re-
spond to the pull of novelty. The presence of an
attachment figure, particularly one who is believed to be
accessible and responsive, leaves the baby open to stimu-
lation that may activate exploration.

Nevertheless, it is often believed that somehow attach-
ment may interfere wilh the development of indepen-
dence. Our studies provide no support for such a belie!’
For example, Blehar et all found that babies who respond
positively to close bodily contact with their mothers also
tend to respond positively to being put down again and to
move off into independent exploratory play. Fostering the
growth of secure attachment facilitates rather than ham-
pers the growth of healthy self-reliance (Bowlby, 1973).

Response to Separation
from Attachment Figures
Schaffer (1971) suggested that the crucial criterion for
whether a baby has become attached to a specilic figure is
that he or she does not consider this figure interchange-
able with any other figure. Thus, for an infant to protest
the mother’s departure or continued absence is a depend-
able criterion for attachment (Schaffer & Callender, 1959).
This does not imply that protest is an invariable response
to separation from an attachment figure under all circum-
stances; the context of the separation influences the likeli-
hood and intensity of protest. Thus there is ample
evidence, which cannot be cited here, that protest is un-
likely to occur, at least initially, in the case of voluntary
separations, when the infant willingly leaves the mother
in order to explore elsewhere. Protest is less likely to oc-
cur if the baby is left with another attachment Iigure than
if he or she is left with an unfamiliar person or alone. Be-
ing left in an unfamiliar environment is more distressing

128 Human Development

than comparable separations in the familiar environment
of the home-in which many infants are able to build up
expectations that reassure them of mother’s accessibility
and responsiveness even though she may be absent.
Changes attributable to developmental processes affect
separation protest in complex ways. Further research will
undoubtedly be able to account for these shifts in terms of
progressive cognitive achievements ….

Other Attachment Figures
Many have interpreted Bowlby’s attachment theory as
claiming that an infant can become attached to only one
person-the mother. This is a mistaken interpretation.
There are, however, three implications of attachment the-
ory relevant to the issue of “multiple” attachments. First, as
reported by Ainsworth (1967) and Schaffer and Emerson
(1964), infants are highly selective in their choices of attach-
ment figures from among the various persons familiar to
them. No infant has been observed to have many attach-
ment figures. Second, not all social relationships may be
identified as attachments. Harlow (1971) distinguished be-
tween the infant-mother and peer-peer affectiona! sys-
tems, although under certain circumstances peers may
become attachment figures in the absence of anyone more
appropriate (see, e.g., Freud & Dann, 1951; Harlow, 1963).
Third, the fact that a baby may have several attachment fig-
ures does not imply that they are all equally important.
Bowlby (1969) suggested that they are not-that there is a
principal attachment figure, usually the principal care-
giver, and one or more secondary figures. Thus a hierarchy
is implied. A baby may both enjoy and derive security
from all of his or her attachment figures, but under certain
circumstances (e.g., illness, fatigue, stress), is likely to show
a clear preference among them.

In recent years there has been a surge of interest in the
father as an attachment figure, as reported elsewhere in
this issue. Relatively lacking is research into attachments
to caregivers other than parents. Do babies become at-
tached to their regular baby-sitters or to caregivers in
day-care centers? Studies by Fleener (1973), Farran and
Ramey (1977), and Ricciuti (1974) have suggested that
they may but that the preference is nevertheless for the
mother figure. Fox (1977) compared the mother and the
metapelet as providers of security to kibbutz-reared in-
fants in a strange situation, but surely much more re-
search is needed into the behavior of infants and young
children toward caregivers as attachment figures in the
substitute-care environment.

Consequences of Attachment
… In comparison with anxiously attached infants, those
who are securely attached as l-year-olds are later more
cooperative with and affectively more positive as well as
less aggressive and/or avoidant toward their mothers
and other less familiar adults. Later on, they emerge as

more competent and more sympathetic in interaction
with peers. In free-play situations they have longer bouts
of exploration and display more intense exploratory in-
terest, and in problem-solving situations they are more
enthusiastic, more persistent, and better able to elicit and
accept their mother’s help. They are more curious, more
self-directed, more ego-resilient-and they usually tend
to achieve better scores on both developmental tests and
measures of language development. Some studies also re-
ported differences between the two groups of anxiously
attached infants, with the avoidant ones (Group A) con-
tinuing to be more aggressive, noncompliant, and
avoidant, and the ambivalent ones (Group C) emerging
as more easily frustrated, less persistent, and generally
less com peten t.

Conclusion
It is clear that the nature of an infant’s attachment to his
or her mother as a l-year-old is related both to earlier in-
teraction with the mother and to various aspects of later
development. The implication is that the way in which
the infant organizes his or her behavior toward the
mother affects the way in which he or she organizes be-
havior toward other aspects of the environment, both an-
imate and inanimate. This organization provides a core of
continuity in development despite changes that come
with developmental acquisitions, both cognitive and so-
cioemotional.

NOTES
1. Blehar, M. c., Ainsworth, M. D. 5., & Main, M. Motller-illfant

interaction relevant to close bodily contact. Monograph in prep-
aration,1979.

REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S. Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth

of love. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1967.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. Attachment as related to mother-infant in-

teraction. In J. S. Rosenblatt, R. A. Hinde, C. Beer, & M. Bus-
nel (Eds.), Advallces ill the study of behavior (Vol. 9). New
York: Academic Press, 1979.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. Some contemporary patterns
of mother-infant interaction in the feeding sihtation. In A.
Ambrose (Ed.), Stimulation in early infancy. London: Aca-
demic Press, 1969.

Ainsworth, M. D. 5., Blehar, M. c., Waters, E., & Wall,S. Patterns
of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.

Bell, S. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. Infant crying and maternal re-
sponsiveness. Child Development, 1972, 43,1171-1190.

Blurton Jones, N. G. Comparative aspects of mother-child con-
tact. In N. G. Blurton Jones (Ed.), Ethological st”dies of child
behaviour. London: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Ba-
sic Books, 1969.

Bowlby, J. Attachmerlt and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and an-
ger. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B.,& Main, M. The origins of reci-
procity: The early mother-infant interaction. In M. Lewis &
L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of Ihe infanl on ils caregiver.
New York: Wiley, 1974.

Caldwell, B. M. The effects of infant care. In M. L. Hoffman &
L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research
(Vol. 1). New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.

Connell, D. B. Individual differences in attachment: An investigation
into stability, implications, and relationships to the structure of
early language development. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Syracuse University, 1976.

Farran, D. c., & Ramey, C. T.Infant day care and attachment be-
havior toward mother and teachers. Child Development,
1977,48,112-116.

Fleener, D. E. Experimental production of infant-maternal at-
tachment behaviors. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Conven-
tion of the American Psychological Association, 1973,8,57-58.
(Summary)

Fox, N. Attachment of kibbutz infants to mother. Child Develop-
menl, 1977, 48, 1228-1239.

Fraiberg, S. Insights from Ihe blind. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
Freud, A., & Dann, S. An experiment in group upbringing. Psy-

choanalytic Study oflhe Child, 1951, 6, 127-168.
Harlow, H. F. The maternal affectional system. In B. M. Foss

(Ed.), Delerminants of infanl behovior (Vol. 2). New York:
Wiley, 1963.

Harlow, H. F. Learning to love. San Francisco: Albion, 1971.
Konner, M. J. Maternal care, infant behavior, and development

among the !Kung. In K B. Lee and I. DeVore (Eds.), Kalahari
hunter-gatherers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1976.

Mary D. 5. Ainsworth (1979) Infant-Mother Attachment 129

Main, M. Avoidance in the service of proximity. In K. Immel-
mann, G. Barlow, M. Main, & L. Petrinovich (Eds.), Behav-
ioral development: The Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project. New
York: Cambridge University Press, in press.

Ricciuti, H. N. Fear and the development of social attachments
in the first year of life. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum
(Eds.), Tile origins offear. New York: Wiley, 1974.

Schaffer, H. R. The growth of sociability. London: Penguin Books,
1971.

Schaffer, H. K, & Callender, W. M. Psychological effects of hos-
pitalization in inIancy. Pediatrics, 1959,25,528-539.

Schaffer, H. R, & Emerson, P. E. The development of social at-
tachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Developmenl, 1964, 3 (Serial No. 94).

Stayton, D. J., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. Individual differences in in-
fant responses to brief, everyday separations as related to
other infant and maternal behaviors. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 1973, 9, 226-235.

Stem, D. N. Mother and infant at play: The dyadic interaction
involving facial, vocal, and gaze behaviors. In M. Lewis &
L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on ils caregiver.
New York: Wiley, 1974.

Walters, R. H., & Parke, R. D. The role of the distance receptors
in the development of social responsiveness. In L. P. Lipsitt
& c. C. Spiker (Eds.), Advances in child developmml and be-
havior. New York: Academic Press, 1965.

Waters, E., Vaughn, B. E., & Egeland, B. K Individual differ-
ences in infant-mother attachment relationships at age one:
Antecedents in neonatal behavior in an urban economi-
cally disadvantaged sample. Child development, in press.