Mary Ainsworth’s contribution to psychology has been pivotal in understanding the experience of close relationships. Ainsworth, who joins other elite psychologists in the upper echelons of the practice, invented one of the most widely applicable tools for discerning children’s attachment to people and objects around them. While many are aware of the early life of Ainsworth it is crucial to enunciate the life-changing activities that impacted her life and the career path she chose. The contributions of Mary Ainsworth in psychology have enabled the mapping, predicting, and understanding attachment at a large scale improving the education and therapeutic practices for children
Early Life and Education
Ainsworth, whose maiden surname was Salter, was born in 1913 in Glendale in Ohio , and she was the eldest among two other sisters. Growing up in a family that valued education despite the period’s unpopular gender prejudice enabled Ainsworth to develop love for reading that was maintained all through her life and her siblings’ (Taylor & Francis Group, 1999). Ainsworth developed a particular interest in psychology after she read William McDougal’s book Character and the Conduct of Life at the age of fifteen (Crittenden, 2017). In 1929, Ainsworth became one of five women who were selected to complete an honors degree in Psychology at the University of Toronto in Canada. Although Ainsworth’s father wanted her to pursue stenography, also popularly known as the court reporters , he supported her ambition to become a psychologist. Ainsworth’s mentors included William E. Blatz and William McDougal and their specific works in child development.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
After studying the various works of some of the most influential individuals in psychology on child development, Ainsworth began writing her dissertation while applying the theory of William E. Blatz. After acquiring her B.A. at the university in 1935, she completed her M.A. in 1936. Following her Ph. D. in Psychology in 1939 she began to offer lectures at The University of Toronto In the same year . Ainsworth was presented with a job opportunity at Queen’s University in the United Kingdom and, despite her lack of interest in the position, managed to impress the interviewer and was chosen as the head of the psychology department in the institution (Taylor & Francis Group, 1999). Notwithstanding, Ainsworth asserted that in the act of gender prejudice, she was informed two weeks later that the University Senate had rejected the appointment of a woman to the position.
As the World War II, began in 1939 , Ainsworth was thrilled to be appointed as an instructor at the institution of her choice, Toronto University, where she taught for three years. Upon completing three years at the university, Ainsworth joined the Canadian Women’s Army Corps in 1942. Her participation in the army was more clinical than administrative and by the time she completed her service in the army in 1945, Ainsworth reached the rank of Major . Many marveled at the ambitious woman that Ainsworth had turned out to be as she slowly earned the reputation of a calm model of feminism . She was responsible for administering tests on the soldiers, questioning and interviewing them while taking histories (Crittenden, 2017). Additionally, she was responsible for counseling the soldiers. After four years of experience and training, Ainsworth returned to the University of Toronto as an assistant professor and specialized in teaching the basics of introductory psychology, personality assessments, and introductory psychology.
In 1950, Ainsworth married her fiancé Leonard Ainsworth, a World War II veteran, who was a graduate student at the institution . In response to the professional regulations that restricted students from having sexual relationships with the faculty members, the couple moved to London, England (Taylor & Francis Group, 1999). In England, Ainsworth managed to acquire a position as a research assistant under psychiatrist John Bowlby at the Tavistock Clinic. She was further motivated by Bowlby’s works on the implications of the separation of children from their mothers at an early age on following personality traits later. The professional relationship between Ainsworth and Bowlby would span for decades as the two assisted each other on various crucial projects on child development. In 1953, Ainsworth and her husband moved to Africa after Leonard expressed an interest in exploring the continent (Crittenden, 2017). Ainsworth managed to secure a position as a research psychologist at the East African Institute of Social Research in Kampala, Uganda. While at the institution, she was able to conduct extensive research on the relationship between mother and infant. The experiments she conducted led to significant changes in how parents, psychologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, educators and policy-makers world-wide thought about parenting infants and very young children (Taylor & Francis Group, 1999).
The stay in Uganda was short lived as the couple found difficulty in finding Leonard employment in the country. Consequently, Ainsworth and her husband returned to America where they settled in Baltimore after finding Leonard a position as an Aristocrat major (Grossmann, Bretherton, Waters, & Grossmann, 2013). Ainsworth was fortunate to get employment as a lecturer at John Hopkins where her job entailed clinical instruction and supervision of the students. In a concerted effort to fulfill a longtime ambition, Ainsworth set up a private practice solely dedicated to children (Taylor & Francis Group, 1999).
In a rather dramatic unfolding of events, Ainsworth and her husband divorced. She experienced a period of depression following the spit which cost her significant time away from her career as she attended long-term psychoanalytic therapy intended to cure her depression. Ainsworth then became a member of the University of Virginia in 1975 which led to her promotion as the Commonwealth Professor of Psychology the following year. Ainsworth retired as a professor emeritus in 1984. Her career achievements were enunciated in 1998 when she was honored with the American Psychological Association’s Gold Medal Award for a Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology.
Psychological Perspective
Ainsworth presumed that childhood behaviors were a result of the style of attachment a child developed to their guardian or parent. She dedicated a lot of her time investigating the broad types of attachments used in categorizing children. The famous “Strange Situation Test” was developed by Mary Ainsworth and Sylvia Bell with contributions from some of her known affiliates such as John Bowlby and Mary Main (Armsden& Lewis, 1993). The central notion upheld by Ainsworth was that children were affected by the event of any interference of the bond between the mother and the child. As a result, a developmental psychologist conducted a test that involved two crucial stages which helped in determining how children reacted in the various situations concerning the attachment or lack of, to a parent specifically the mother (Grossmann, Bretherton, Waters, & Grossmann, 2013). Ainsworth enunciated the research conducted by Bowlby on the development of children and attachment. She was intent to prove her hypothesis that a child is susceptible to develop psychological challenges when the link between them and the parents, particularly the mother, is savored .
The “Strange Situations” procedure
The strange situation paradigm was used to investigate the nature of attachment and different types of attachment in one to two-year-olds . The investigation involves two crucial stages namely “the observation phase” and “the assessment phase” which were proposed to help in classifying the various children under observation (Bretherton, 1992). To determine the results, the experiment was set up in a small room with an improvised one-way glass that enabled the observer to watch the children without their knowledge. Thus, the children were unaware that they were being observed which made the experiment more natural and successful. The infants used in the study were 12 to 18 months as the sample population included approximately 100 middle-class American families (Grossmann & Grossmann, 1984). The analysis was conducted by observing the conducts of babies in a series of eight stages of about three minutes each.
The steps in the eight episodes included; placing the mother, baby, and experimenter in a secure room and observing them for one minute or less. After which, the experimenter exits the observation room leaving the infant and the mother. A stranger then joins the duo in the room, and the reaction of the baby is observed for three minutes (Bretherton, 1992). The mother then leaves the baby and the stranger alone in the place for a few minutes , and then she returns to the room as the stranger walks out. The infant is eventually left alone for about three minutes after which the stranger joins her or him and then the mother finally returns too. The rating of the test is based on the reaction of the infant under various circumstances. Particular focus is placed in the reunion stages which were steps five and eight.( Armsden& Lewis, 1993) The different factors being investigated include whether or not the infant anticipates or resists proximity and contact-seeking and whether or not the baby maintained contact.
The observation phase of the experiment included a fourth party who stood behind the mirror and recorded the observations in 15 seconds each. The observer is thus expected to maintain a keen concentration of the reaction of the baby in each given scenario. The assessment phase focused on the four elements of child conduct in an attempt to develop a given scoring system. Bretherton (1992) enunciates that the categories of children according to the experiment include “The Sure Attachment” which is when the child being observed demonstrated a profound sense of connection to the mother. Thus, such a child would want maximum contact with the mother and would possibly be intent in maintaining proximity to the mother (Armsden& Lewis, 1993). When the mother exits the room, the observer will witness the baby being uncomfortable and in other extreme cases may even begin crying for the mother. A child that is classified as being “Anxious-Resistant Insecure Attachment ,” will be observed to portray high anxiety levels when the stranger walks in the room and low anxiety levels when the mother enters. The child would appear unenthusiastic to see the mother in this case.
The other classification is the “Disorganized Attachment” class which is when the child may get agitated for being separated with the mother and may consequently appeared happy when she returns but may refuse to establish physical contact or go near them due to anger (Grossmann & Grossmann, 1984). The child may exhibit mixed behaviors such as hitting and hugging the mother at the same time repetitively. Further investigation proved that most of the mothers with children under this classification experienced a traumatizing incident immediately before the birth of the child and had undergone depression.
Conclusion
Ainsworth’s early life was perceived to be rather intriguing as she developed interests in the psychology field at a tender age. Her academics records were filled with brilliance as Ainsworth was amongst the first few women at the time to receive a scholarship to pursue her degree at the University of Toronto. Her dedication towards the field of study was impeccable as she devoted her time and effort in pursuing her academic ambitions up to the PhD level. In 1950, she married her long time fiancé, Leonard Ainsworth, who was a World War II veteran who she later divorced . Ainsworth is one of the most prominent individuals in psychology. She was intrigued by the subject of child development from the first textbook she indulged. She perceived the event of a child to be directly related to the type of attachment the child has to their mother. Ainsworth believed that the healthier and deeper the connection between an infant and the mother, the better chances the child has at developing. Thus, a child that has no significant attachment to the mother was postulated to have a poor development process thus affecting the person they turn into later on in life. The theory, though challenged continuously and critiqued, has become of the most commonly applied approaches in the assessment of individuals. Ainsworth’s contribution to psychology is impactful as her findings are still relevant to date.
References
Armsden, G. C., & Lewis, F. M. (1993). The child's adaptation to parental medical illness: theory and clinical implications. Patient Education and Counseling , 22 (3), 153-165. doi:10.1016/0738-3991(93)90095-e
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology , 28 , 759-775.
Crittenden, P. M. (2017). Gifts from Mary Ainsworth and John Bowlby. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 22 (3), 436-442. doi:10.1177/1359104517716214
Grossmann, K. E., Bretherton, I., Waters, E., & Grossmann, K. (2013). Maternal sensitivity: observational studies honoring Mary Ainsworth’s 100thyear. Attachment & Human Development , 15 (5-6), 443-447. doi:10.1080/14616734.2013.841058
Grossmann, K. E., & Grossmann, K. (1984). Discovery and proof in attachment research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 7 (01), 154.doi:10.1017/s0140525x00026601
Taylor & Francis Group. (1999). Mary Ainsworth, 1913–1999. Attachment & Human Development , 1 (2), 217-228. doi:10.1080/14616739900134241
