Insecure Attachment 263Ay-voidant.) More recently, an additional variety of insecure attachment
has been recognised (type D=disorganised–disorientated); the children
who are now included in this new category were previously scattered
among the A, B and C categories. The characteristic child behaviours seen
with each type of attachment are shown in Table 32.1. Table 32.1 also
shows the approximate frequency of each type in normative American
samples, as well as the most commonly associated care-giving styles, and
the likely classification of the caregiver’s own attachment type, as revealed
by the Adult Attachment Interview (see below).
A secure attachment is obviously better than an insecure attachment –
or is it? It is true, as discussed later, that a secure attachment is associated
with modest increases in subsequent happiness and social success, at least
in middle-class America. From an evolutionary point of view, though, it is
important to remember that insecure attachments may well be adaptive
responses to unfavourable circumstances, in much the same way that
restricted growth (stunting) is an adaptive response to chronic malnutri-
tion. If a caregiver is rejecting, an avoidant (type A) attachment may be
the child’s most adaptive strategy for getting some care without risking
total abandonment. ‘Half a loaf is better than no bread.’ Conversely, if a
caregiver is preoccupied and tends to ignore the child, exaggerated (type
C) attachment behaviour may be the child’s most adaptive strategy for
getting his or her needs met. ‘The squeaky hinge gets the oil.’ Whether a
disorganised (type D) attachment is ever adaptive is not yet clear.
The relative frequency of the ABCD attachment types as assessed by
the SSP varies between and within cultures. To some extent, this may
be an artefact of the assessment procedure. Thus, although a higher rate
of resistant attachment has been described in Japan, this may be because
young Japanese children are so rarely separated from their mothers that
the SSP is far more stressful for them than for their American or European
counterparts – and therefore far more likely to elicit marked and prolonged
clinging. Such artefacts seem less likely to account for two other cross-
cultural differences. In north Germany there is a higher rate of avoidant at-
tachment, perhaps reflecting a cultural push towards early independence;
and in Israel there is a higher rate of resistant attachment on kibbutzim,
where young children sleep in a children’s house, a setting where crying or
distress may need to be intense and prolonged before a caregiver responds.
Many American studies of infants who spend much of their week in non-
maternal care also report an elevated rate of insecure attachment, perhaps
reflecting the poor quality of some of this non-maternal care.
The rate of insecure attachment is increased by adverse family factors
such as maternal depression, maternal alcoholism, or child abuse. This is
most obvious for disorganised attachment, which is the sort of insecure
attachment that best predicts future problems (see below). Thus, the rate
of disorganised attachment varies from around 15% in two-parent middle-
class samples to over 80% in maltreating families.
The ABCD classification generated by the SSP is specific to the
child–caregiver pair that is assessed. A child who is shown to be securely