The Strange Situation by Mary Ainsworth reflects different attachment styles: anxious-avoidant (Type A), secure attachment (Type B) and ambivalent attachment (Type C).
It is administered in the following way: a toddler is accompanied by their caregiver to an experimental room, which is filled with toys. The caregiver then leaves the child alone in the room. After a short period of time, a stranger enters the room. Finally, the caregiver and their child are reunited. A researcher assesses the child’s reaction to each stage of the experiment to determine what kind of attachment the child presents with their primary caregiver.

A meta-analysis study by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) revealed differences in group classifications of attachment styles between eight countries and even within these same countries. Particularly, they noted that countries that tend to be more communally oriented, such as Japan and Israel, had a higher percentage of Type C attachment individuals, whilst more individualistic countries, such as Germany had a higher percentage of Type A attachment styles. Secure attachments have been found to be associated to the best outcomes for people, including better empathy, less aggression, closer friendships and even higher grades.

In light of this information, will countries like Israel, Japan and Germany have more individuals with negative life outcomes? Most likely not. It seems that attachment styles are simply that: styles. According to this finding, they do not necessarily reflect a universally bad or a good parent-child relationship, but rather a different way of reacting to the strange situation paradigm. For example, the Israeli children who had a communal living situation in which they were not always close to their mothers did not show anxiety at their mother’s departure from the room. On the other hand, they are not used to contact with strangers, so they became more anxious when the stranger entered the room. Their reactions are characteristic of a Type C attachment style, one that is perhaps better suited for their living arrangement, because communal living requires them to interact with a larger group than just the nuclear family. Similarly, a study by Grossman et al. (1985) on German toddlers revealed a higher percentage of Type A attachment styles because, according to the researcher, German parents prefer raising more independent, obedient children. A Type B child would then be considered too needy for the cultural demands of the parents. In this way, having a secure attachment is not necessarily better than the other attachment styles, it is simply what a North-American lifestyle favours.

This raises ethical concerns about the presentation of the attachment style to children and parents who take this test. What is the test really showing? And is the attachment behavior suited for the lifestyle of the child and his or her primary caregiver?

It is also important to note that within Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study (1988), differences of samples within each country were normally larger than differences between each country. This means that although the samples from Japan did have a higher number of Type C relationships, this does not mean that this was true for every sample within the country.
The lesson one can keep in mind is that although there are different attachment styles, one must not fall into the trap of labelling certain parent-child relationships as better or worse than another depending on their attachment behavior. All one can conclude with the Strange Situation paradigm is that the relationships differ. And that is ok.


References:

Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Spangler, G., Suess, G., & Unzner, L. (1985). Maternal sensitivity and newborns’ orientation responses as related to quality of attachment in northern Germany. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 233–256.

Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Development, 147–156.

Image from: Siegel, D. (2011). Identifying Your Child’s Attachment Style. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from http://www.psychalive.org/identifying-your-childs-attachment-style/