ABSTRACT
Although the A, B, C classification system had strictly empirical origins in Ainsworth’s early research (see Chapter 3), the interpretation of these patterns has been consistent with other aspects of attachment theory. Most of these interpretations have been stated in terms of the principles of evolutionary biology. Thus several theorists (e.g., Ainsworth, 1979a; Main, 1981; Sroufe, 1979, 1983; Waters & Deane, 1982) have suggested that the patterns of behavior in the Strange Situation can be understood by reference to Bowlby’s (1969) ethological perspective. From this viewpoint, the normative B pattern of behavior can be considered “secure” because it is adaptive, since the infant behaves in a way that would have enhanced its chances of survival in the species’ “environment of evolutionary adaptedness” (Bowlby, 1969). Thus it seeks proximity, contact, or interaction when they return after an absence, maintains interaction with the attachment figure, and uses them as secure bases from which to explore. This interpretation is based on Bowlby’s claim—earlier discussed in Chapter 2—that natural selection has produced infants who are predisposed to emit proximity-promoting behaviors (such as smiling and crying) to which adults are predisposed to respond. The attainment of the protective proximity that is of survival value for the infant depends on the prompt and appropriate responsiveness of the adult to the infant’s signals. The A and C patterns, by contrast, are viewed as maladaptive because these infants fail to behave in the fashion that would have maximized the possibilities of survival in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Thus, for example, they do not use the adult as a secure base from which to explore, and do not seek protective proximity when alarmed or distressed.
