Cultural Variations in Attachment- Attachment Project

The bond between a caregiver and child is universally important, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or culture. We are all born with the drive to connect to our caregiver. If this relationship is healthy and strong, often our other relationships will thrive. However, if cracks form in this early relationship, it can trigger a lot of difficulties later in life.

So, attachment bonds are universal in some ways, but are all aspects of attachment across different cultures the same? Evidence suggests not. Yet, attachment bonds may vary in different ways to what we might initially imagine.

To answer all of your questions regarding cultural variations in attachment, this article will cover:

What attachment is
A brief history of attachment styles
The cultural variations in attachment
Possible reasons for cultural variations in attachment
The accuracy of the research on the cultural variations in attachment

Do you know your attachment style?
Take our attachment quiz and find out now – fast, easy, free.

Start Quiz

What Is Attachment?

According to John Bowlby, who could be called the “founding father” of attachment theory, attachment is “a lasting psychological connectedness between human beings.”

But how could attachment be explained in simpler terms? Well, it could easily be explained by describing it as an emotional bond that forms between a child and their caregiver. Attachment becomes established by the way the caregiver responds to the child: If the caregiver is responsive to the child, and responds with warmth and empathy, the child will feel safe and secure in the world. However, if the caregiver doesn’t consistently respond to their child, or they are harsh or punitive, the child may develop negative beliefs about others, themself, and the world, such as:

“Others aren’t to be trusted.”
“I’m not good enough to be cared for.”
“The world isn’t safe.”

In essence, the way our caregiver responds to us in infancy shapes our attachment style, which then impacts our relationships with others in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. So, what are the attachment styles?

A History of Attachment Styles

In the early 1950s, Canadian psychologist Mary Ainsworth joined Bowlby in his attachment research. Ainsworth focused her efforts on understanding the interindividual differences of attachment. She researched babies and their mothers in Uganda and the US, attempting to predict a pattern between caregiver behaviors and infant attachment types.

However, she quickly began to notice differences in Ugandan and US families. For example, in Baltimore, babies experienced their caregivers leaving and returning more often than those from Uganda, which meant they were less likely to cry when left on their own. Babies from other parts of the US were also less likely to cling to their caregivers when they returned.

Due to these differences, Ainsworth adapted her tests, creating a laboratory experiment called “The Strange Situation,” which involved putting the babies under slight stress to draw out their attachment style. This laboratory experiment involved 8 different scenarios between the mothers and babies:

Mother and baby are introduced to the room.
Mother sits and responds to the baby while they play freely for several minutes.
A stranger enters, chats to the mother, then to the baby.
Mother leaves the room for three minutes.
Mother returns and greets her baby.
Both the stranger and mother leave the baby, so they are on their own for three minutes.
Stranger returns on their own and greets the baby.
Mother returns and attempts to comfort her baby.

Ainsworth observed the babies during this procedure to see how they responded to their mother leaving and returning, and how they reacted to a stranger. Through this, she noticed three different behavior patterns, which she called “attachment styles.” These were:

Secure
Insecure-avoidant (later known as avoidant attachment)
Insecure-ambivalent (later known as anxious attachment)

In later research, psychologists Mary Main and Judith Solomon noticed a pattern of behavior in children which didn’t fit with the previously established styles, and, thus, identified a fourth attachment style, known as disorganized-insecure.

The Strange Situation experiment has been used across the world as a standard measure of infant’s attachment styles. However, this procedure isn’t suitable for older children, and certainly wouldn’t be fitting for adults (for obvious reasons). Instead, we can use a series of multiple choice questions to identify our attachment styles as adults.

Want to find out what your attachment style is? You can do so using the free Attachment Style Quiz on our website.

Are There Cultural Variations in Attachment?

We’ve already seen the difficulties Ainsworth faced when trying to replicate her findings on attachment patterns across cultures. So, this left many people wondering whether there are cultural variations in attachment. The research suggests that yes, there are cultural variations in attachment, but perhaps not in the way one might initially expect.

Cultural Variations in the Distribution of Attachment Styles

The research suggests that the main cultural variations in attachment are to do with the distribution of the attachment styles. For example, van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg replicated the Strange Situation procedure in a meta-analysis of eight different countries. They found a similar pattern to Ainsworth in the US, UK, China, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Holland, and Israel. This pattern was:

65% securely attached
21% avoidantly attached
14% anxiously attached

However, there have been different findings in other countries. For example, in Northern Germany, they found that 52% of infants were avoidantly attached, with only 34% and 13% of infants securely and anxiously attached, retrospectively.

Furthermore, a study conducted in Japan found that 68% of infants were securely attached. While this may sound similar to other findings, just wait until you hear about the distribution of insecure attachment! Japanese children only fell into the anxiously attached insecure category, with none meeting the criteria for avoidant.

Differences in Attachment Within Cultures

We can also see differences in attachment styles within cultures. Going back to van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s study, they found that differences within cultures were far greater than variations in attachment across cultures–nearly one and a half times greater! Why might this be?

Well, van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg suggested there are various subcultures within a single culture. They also believed that the variation within cultures could be due to things like socio-economic factors and stress levels. For example, children born in poverty or with lower socio-economic status, or who were exposed to higher stress levels, were more likely to be insecurely attached.

But van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s ideas only cover a small portion of the research on cultural variations in attachment. So, what are the other possible reasons for these differences?

Reasons For Cultural Variations in Attachment

When researchers considered the possible reasons for cultural variations in attachment over the years, multiple caregivers and cultural differences in what was considered to be “stranger danger” were two factors that particularly stuck out.

#1 Multiple Caregivers and Cultural Variations in Attachment

One particularly evident difference in caregiving patterns between cultures is the number of caregivers present in a child’s life from infancy. Research suggests that in Western cultures, we often view attachment as a “monotropic bond,” meaning we envisage one mother and one baby. However, in other cultures, a caregiving system of multiple caregivers is more common.

When we think about it, none of us would have survived through evolution if mothers didn’t receive help from other caregivers, such as siblings, grandparents, and other relatives. Not only did our ancestors spread the caregiving requirements across multiple caregivers, but they also distributed the cost of raising a child and the domestic activities like gathering and working in the fields.

This way of living and functioning as a family unit is still present in some cultures, such as the Efé people in the Ituri Rainforest of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Among Efé people, newborn babies are held, carried, and nursed by many women. By six weeks of age, Efé infants spend more time with other people than with their biological mother.

When we consider these caregiving patterns, it’s easy to see why cultural variations in attachment exist. Variations in beliefs about “stranger danger” across cultures also help us understand these differences.

#2 Cultural Variations in “Stranger Danger”

In the Strange Situation procedure, strangers are introduced to allow researchers to see a baby’s response to stress. However, “stranger danger” doesn’t necessarily translate across cultures. For some cultures, stranger danger doesn’t exist, voiding the “stranger” part of the Strange Situation procedure.

For example, the Beng people in West Africa teach their children to welcome strangers with open arms. Beng babies are also likely to be introduced to many different people right from birth, and are often left to interact with unknown people. A similar attitude is instilled in Brazilian Piraha Indian babies.

If we consider the people we are exposed to as babies in Western cultures–typically just close relatives and friends–we can see how the concept of “stranger danger” may look different across cultures, which likely influences the attachment patterns we see.

Is the Research On Cultural Variations in Attachment Accurate?

If you grouped attachment experts together, they’d likely passionately argue about how accurate the research on cultural variations in attachment is. It’s a highly debated topic for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, evidence suggests that the way researchers select, shape, and interpret the behaviors babies show in the Strange Situation procedure are culturally patterned. Some researchers suggest that the Strange Situation is a Westernized way of looking at attachment patterns, which means that attachment bonds may show up as similar across cultures, even if they’re not.

The accuracy of the research on cultural variations in attachment may also come down to the idea of “caregiver sensitivity.” Caregiver sensitivity is the primary caregiver’s ability to respond promptly and appropriately to their infant’s signals, such as when they need feeding, changing, or to sleep. Evidence demonstrates that caregivers who show greater sensitivity are more likely to have healthier attachments to their children. But how does this relate to cultural variations?

Well, research indicates that levels of caregiver sensitivity are relatively stable across cultures. For example, similar levels of caregiver sensitivity are found in Japanese, Israeli, and US families, as well as other non-Western cultures. However, the cultural differences appear to lie in the way caregivers respond to their infants. For example, African mothers have been found to talk less to their infants compared to mothers from Europe, the Far East, and South and North America. Another example would be how Palestinian-Arab mothers tend to show more positive responses to their babies’ distress, whereas Jewish mothers may respond by matching their babies’ emotional state.

So, testing to see mother’s responses to their babies, and the babies’ responses back, may not be enough to measure the caregiver-child bond. Based on current findings, it’s safe to say that more research is needed for us to fully understand the cultural variations in attachment.

Conclusion

Cultural variations in attachment appear to exist. However, the differences seem to be in the distribution of attachment styles, rather than the attachment bonds themselves. And surprisingly, the differences that do exist appear to be more within cultures than between them.

The cultural differences we see in attachment bonds may relate to the number of caregivers we’re exposed to as infants and how the concept of “stranger danger” looks different across cultures. However, the idea of cultural variations in attachment is a highly debated topic, with some experts arguing that the research is biased toward a Westernized view of caregiver-child bonds.

The only thing we know for sure is this: we need more research on the potential differences in attachment across cultures before we can come to any solid conclusions.

Cultural variations in attachment appear to exist. However, the differences seem to be in the distribution of attachment styles, rather than the attachment bonds themselves. And surprisingly, the differences that do exist appear to be more within cultures than between them.

The cultural differences we see in attachment bonds may relate to the number of caregivers we’re exposed to as infants and how the concept of “stranger danger” looks different across cultures. However, the idea of cultural variations in attachment is a highly debated topic, with some experts arguing that the research is biased toward a Westernized view of caregiver-child bonds.

The only thing we know for sure is this: we need more research on the potential differences in attachment across cultures before we can come to any solid conclusions.

Abu Salih, M., Abargil, M., Badarneh, S., Klein Selle, N., Irani, M., & Atzil, S. (2023). Evidence for cultural differences in affect during mother-infant interactions. Scientific reports, 13(1), 4831.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Granqvist P. (2021). Attachment, culture, and gene-culture co-evolution: expanding the evolutionary toolbox of attachment theory. Attachment & human development, 23(1), 90–113.

Keller, H. (2013). Attachment and culture. Journal of Cross-cultural psychology, 44(2), 175-194.

Miller, J. G., Harwood, R. L., Irizarry, N. L. (1997). Culture and Attachment: Perceptions of the Child in Context. Guilford Publications.

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and culture. Security in the United States and Japan. The American psychologist, 55(10), 1093–1104.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Development, 59(1), 147–156