CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
SPECIFICATION: Cultural variations in attachment, including van Ijzendoorn.
THE STRANGE SITUATION AS A UNIVERSAL MEASURE OF ATTACHMENT
Mary Ainsworth developed the Strange Situation as a controlled observational method to assess the quality of attachment between infants and their primary caregivers. It relies on separation and reunion episodes, interpreting behaviours such as exploration, distress, and comfort-seeking to classify attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant. While this method is widely used, it is important to question whether it can be a universal measuring tool across different cultural contexts.
VAN IJZENDOORN AND KROONENBERG (1988) META-ANALYSIS
VAN IJZENDOORN AND KROONENBERG (1988) META-ANALYSIS
Using the Strange Situation, Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg examined 32 studies across eight countries. They found that:
Secure attachment was the most common type in every country, ranging from 50% to 75%.
There was more variation within cultures than between cultures.
Cultural differences existed in the avoidant and resistant attachments distribution, but the overall pattern seemed relatively stable.
STRENGTH: SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSALITY OF ATTACHMENT
One strength of Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s findings is that secure attachment was the most common type in all eight countries studied. This supports the idea that secure attachment may be a universal phenomenon, possibly reflecting a biological basis as suggested by Bowlby. The consistency in results, despite cultural variation, lends support to the validity of attachment theory across cultures and that the Strange Situation is cross-culturally reliable. One might argue that the tool is universally valid if attachment classifications are similar across societies.
ARE SIMILAR RESULTS EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY?
However, this conclusion is not straightforward. Similar rates of secure attachment across countries do not necessarily mean that attachment is being measured accurately in all cultures. Several possibilities could explain this consistency:
Biological universality: Human infants have innate attachment behaviours, and caregivers across cultures respond similarly.
Cultural convergence: Parenting practices may have become more similar globally due to shared exposure to media, books, and globalised parenting advice.
Misinterpretation of behaviours: Behaviours may look similar but carry different meanings in different cultural contexts, which could lead to incorrect classifications.
Thus, while results may appear consistent, they may not reflect equivalent emotional or relational experiences.
ETIC, EMIC, AND IMPOSITION
This leads to an essential methodological critique. The Strange Situation is an etic approach — a tool developed within one cultural framework (Western, middle-class America) and applied to others.
However, it may function as an imposed etic, where Western assumptions about child development are treated as the norm, potentially leading to misclassification in other cultures. For example, behaviours labelled as resistant or avoidant in Western psychology may reflect cultural norms around independence, obedience, or physical proximity.
An alternative would be a derived etic, where the tool is adapted to fit cultural contexts while retaining a shared theoretical foundation. Better still, an emic approach would involve studying attachment using methods and interpretations that arise within the culture, without applying external standards.
CONCLUSION
In summary, while Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis suggests surface-level consistency in attachment classifications across cultures, this does not confirm the universal validity of the Strange Situation as a measuring tool. Behaviours may appear similar but differ in meaning, and applying the same interpretative framework across cultures risks cultural bias. Until these tools are adapted or used alongside emic approaches, the Strange Situation’s status as a universal measure of attachment remains questionable.
EVALUATION OF THE META-ANALYSIS
Moreover, although often cited as supporting Bowlby’s theory of universal attachment patterns, a closer inspection of Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis reveals significant limitations that challenge this view.
LACK OF CULTURAL REPRESENTATION
Despite being framed as a study of global cultural variation, the sample is far from culturally inclusive. The majority of studies came from Western, industrialised nations — particularly the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden — with a glaring absence of entire continents and cultural regions:
No data from African countries
No representation from Southeast Asia
Only two Middle Eastern countries
Very few collectivist cultures are included in proportion to the global population
This limits the study's external validity and undermines any claims of universal attachment trends. In reality, the findings reflect Western sampling bias, making it difficult to generalise results to truly diverse cultural practices around child-rearing
Moreover, although over 2000 children were examined, some samples, such as the Chinese sample, were tiny, comprising only 36 children. It may, therefore, be unwise to generalise the results across all Chinese children as the findings may not represent the whole population.
INTRA-CULTURAL VARIATION
One significant finding in Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) meta-analysis was that variation within cultures was 1.5 times greater than variation between cultures. This suggests that broad cultural labels may obscure essential differences within individual societies.
Such intra-cultural differences could be attributed to variations in socioeconomic status, education, or parenting styles. For instance, in the United States, some studies focused on middle-class families, while others included families from lower-income backgrounds. These groups may differ significantly in caregiving practices, levels of parental stress, or access to support networks — all of which can affect attachment outcomes.
This highlights an essential methodological issue: subcultures exist within cultures, and each may promote distinct child-rearing norms. Therefore, it is overly simplistic to interpret attachment classifications at the national level without considering internal diversity. This further challenges the assumption that the Strange Situation provides a universally valid measure of attachment, even within a single country.
OTHER CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH IN THE STRANGE SITUATION
GROSSMANN ET AL. (1991) – GERMANY
Grossmann et al. (1991) found that German children were more likely to be classified as insecurely attached compared to most other cultures, where secure attachment was dominant. This was attributed to German child-rearing practices, which encourage independence and interpersonal space between children and parents. As a result, German infants were less likely to show proximity-seeking behaviours in the Strange Situation and were therefore classified as insecure. This raises concerns about the validity of Ainsworth’s classification system, as what may be a culturally appropriate attachment behaviour in one society can be misinterpreted as insecurity in another.
TRONICK ET AL. (1992) – THE EFE TRIBE, ZAIRE
Tronick et al. (1992) studied the Efe, an African tribe living in Zaire, where infants were raised in extended family groups. Children were breastfed and cared for by multiple women throughout the day, but typically slept with their biological mother at night. Despite this shared caregiving, the infants preferred one primary attachment figure by six months. This supports Bowlby’s theory that attachment is an innate, biological process, rather than purely a product of cultural norms or caregiving style.
TAKAHASHI (1990) – JAPAN
Takahashi (1990) applied the Strange Situation to 60 middle-class Japanese infants. The results initially appeared to support Bowlby’s theory, with similar rates of secure attachment to those found in Ainsworth’s original US sample. However, one striking difference was the unusually high proportion of insecure-resistant infants (32%) and the complete absence of insecure-avoidant classifications. Additionally, 90% of infants became so distressed during the separation episode that the experiment had to be halted.
FOX ET AL
examined infants raised on Israeli kibbutzim who were primarily cared for in communal children’s homes by nurses. The Strange Situation was used to test attachment styles and study how their relationships differed between the nurses and their actual mothers, with similar behaviour expressed by children towards both. The only difference was found in reunion behaviour towards their mothers, towards whom they showed a greater attachment. This highlights how a primary attachment figure may exist even in shared care environments, suggesting attachment behaviour was more universal than Bowlby proposed, supporting the idea of universal attachment.
CULTURAL BIAS IN THE STRANGE SITUATION
Individualist cultures value independence, with each person working toward their goals, e.g., the USA and Europe (Western Cultures).
Collectivist cultures value cooperation with each person working towards the family or group goals, e.g., Japan and Israel (Eastern Cultures)
The Strange Situation was developed within a Western cultural framework, where independence and exploration are indicators of secure attachment. However, these assumptions do not apply universally, making the procedure ethnocentric.
Designed as an etic tool, the Strange Situation applies attachment norms developed in Western societies to other cultures without adapting to their specific caregiving practices. It assumes that securely attached infants should explore confidently, using their caregiver as a secure base. But in many non-Western or traditional societies, exploration is not always encouraged, not because children are insecure, but because environmental risks (e.g. predators, dangerous terrain, or lack of supervision) make proximity more adaptive. In such contexts, children who remain close to caregivers and protest separation — behaviour labelled insecure-resistant in Western terms — may demonstrate healthy, culturally appropriate attachment strategies.
The Strange Situation also assumes that short separations from the caregiver are a normal part of infancy. However, co-sleeping, constant proximity, and continuous caregiving are standard in many cultures. Historically, separation from a caregiver could have been life-threatening, meaning that staying close is both biologically and culturally adaptive. Using separation distress as a diagnostic tool imposes a Western expectation of independence that may be inappropriate or harmful when applied cross-culturally.
These issues were highlighted in the cross-cultural meta-analysis by Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988), which revealed striking cultural variations in insecure attachment classifications. For instance, Japanese infants showed high levels of insecure-resistant attachment, while German infants were more often classified as insecure-avoidant. However, these results likely reflect parenting values rather than attachment insecurity. Japanese infants are rarely separated from caregivers, so even brief separations, as seen in the Strange Situation, can cause extreme distress. Meanwhile, German parenting promotes early independence, making it unsurprising that children show avoidant behaviours.
Further cultural bias is evident when you compare what is deemed to be securely attached behaviour between cultures. For example, Rothbaum (2000) argued that the theory behind attachment behaviour was too heavily based on Western interpretations of what secure attachment looks like as a child and in adulthood. Bowlby and Ainsworth suggested the continuity hypothesis and that securely attached children would become securely attached adults through being emotionally and socially competent. They define competence as showing independence, exploration, and emotional regulation. In Japanese culture, secure attachment is seen as being group-focused and inhibiting emotions. This highlights that child-rearing practices differ between cultures and must be examined to interpret the findings of the strange situation scenario.
This raises a critical question: Are these children truly insecure, or are researchers misinterpreting culturally shaped behaviours through a Western lens? If so, this undermines the Strange Situation's population validity and calls into question its usefulness as a global measure of attachment.
VALIDITY OF ATTACHMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
A significant concern regarding the Strange Situation is the validity of attachment classifications, particularly about insecure-resistant (also known as ambivalent) attachment. This category is defined by intense distress upon separation and difficulty being comforted upon reunion, but what exactly does this behaviour represent?
The Strange Situation does not differentiate between possible underlying causes. For instance, is this attachment style a response to inconsistent caregiving, where the child is unsure what to expect? Or does it reflect overprotective parenting, where independence is discouraged? The lack of clarity in operationalising resistant attachment makes interpreting what the behaviour indeed indicates difficult.
Attachment behaviours may not have the same meaning across cultures, suggesting that the Strange Situation may lack cross-cultural validity. Takahashi’s replication of the Strange Situation in Japan is a clear example. Many Japanese infants were classified as insecure-resistant, yet this interpretation failed to account for Japanese cultural norms, such as close physical proximity between mothers and infants (e.g., co-sleeping, on-demand care). As a result, separation was far more distressing — not because the attachment was insecure, but because such separations were culturally uncommon and unnatural. The study was sometimes halted early due to the extreme distress, highlighting how Western methods can misread culturally normal behaviour as pathological.
Yet this raises a serious inconsistency: In Japan, these signs of distress were eventually reinterpreted as normal—but why should Japanese infants be reclassified, while infants in Western subcultures with similar behaviours are still labelled insecure? This selective cultural adjustment undermines the objectivity of the classification system. Attachment categories should not be fluid based on researchers’ assumptions about which cultures warrant reinterpretation. Doing so reflects researcher bias and calls into question the classifications' universality.
A similar problem arises in Germany, where many children are considered insecure-avoidant. However, this pattern of behaviour aligns with cultural expectations that children be independent and emotionally self-sufficient from a young age. Again, what may be deemed insecurity in one culture may reflect adaptive behaviour in another.
Altogether, these examples highlight a critical issue: the Strange Situation imposes an etic framework on behaviours that may be better understood emically, within their cultural context. If attachment is context-dependent, applying Western norms as universal benchmarks may produce distorted or misleading conclusions.
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE APPROACHES
Researchers have begun developing alternative assessment tools that are more culturally sensitive. For example, the “Familiar Stranger Task” was designed in China to observe how infants respond to a semi-familiar adult — a figure more relevant to their daily experiences than a stranger. This method respects local caregiving norms, such as extended family involvement or communal child-rearing, which the original Strange Situation may not capture.
Other culturally responsive tools include naturalistic home observations or parent-infant interviews. These provide richer, context-specific insights into attachment without relying on Western assumptions about how secure attachment should be expressed. These tools adopt an emic approach, tailoring the measurement to the studied culture rather than imposing a standardised Western method. Their development reflects growing awareness that attachment behaviours must be understood within a cultural framework, not judged solely against foreign norms.
Possible exam questions on cultural variations in attachment include:
Describe research by Van IJzendoorn on cultural variations in attachment (6 marks)
Explain one criticism of research into cultural variations in attachment (4 marks)
Outline and evaluate research on cultural variations in attachment (12 marks AS, 16 marks A-level). Cultural Variations In Attachment
“Discuss/Outline/Research Into” AO1 and evaluate research on cultural variations in attachment A03 (16 marks).
