Attachment and Culture

Abstract

This article proposes to reconceptualize attachment theory as a culture-sensitive framework. First the seminal contribution of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth are recognized in proposing a new paradigm for understanding children’s development, synthesizing the interdisciplinary knowledge of relationship formation present during the 1950s (Bowlby) and developing a fieldwork approach in combination with quasi-experimental procedures in the laboratory (Ainsworth). It is argued that students of attachment theory have expanded the framework with respect to the intergenerational transmission and the organizational nature of attachment, relations with psychopathology and clinical applications, and its psychophysiological foundation. It is further argued that attachment theorists were not responsive to developments in evolutionary sciences and cultural/anthropological approaches of parenting and child development. From an evolutionary perspective, contextual variability is crucial to meet the purpose of adaptation. It is demonstrated that the assumptions of monotropy, the conception of stranger anxiety, as well as the definition of attachment in mainstream attachment research are in line with the conception of psychological autonomy, adaptive for Western middle-class, but deviate from the cultural values of many non-Western and mainly rural ecosocial environments. In the concluding paragraph, a strategy is proposed for an empirical research program that would contribute to the cultural foundation of attachment.

A Question of Fit: Cultural and Individual Differences in Interpersonal Justice Perceptions

“…In particular, it is the first study to link attachment style differences to ethically relevant work outcomes. Third, our findings answer growing calls for organizational researchers in general (e.g., Gelfand et al, 2007), and justice scholars (e.g., Greenberg, 2001;Primeaux, et al, 2003) and attachment theorists in particular (e.g., Harms, 2011;Keller, 2013), to move away from Western normative conceptualizations of theories and constructs and develop alternative, culturally nuanced understandings.…”

“…Furthermore, recent critiques point to the fact that dominant conceptualizations of attachment theory are based on normative, middle-class Western ideals of attachment and 'healthy', or secure, relationships (Rothbaum et al, 2000). However, such an approach ignores the wide variation in relational ideals between cultures (Keller, 2013).…”

Teaching: Natural or Cultural?

“…But they rarely gaze at them or engage in shared attention to novel objects (de León, 2011;Göncü, Mistry, & Mosier, 2000;LeVine, 2004). When Nso babies gaze at their mothers during nursing, the mother blows in their eyes so they avert their gaze and pay attention to others (Keller, 2013). Mazahua nursing mothers often display a "distracted air and pay almost no attention to the baby" (Paradise, 1996, p. 382).…”

Is the ideal mother a sensitive mother? Beliefs about early childhood parenting in mothers across the globe

“…It has been argued that the definitions of the main attachmentrelated constructs, including secure attachment and sensitivity, are biased towards individualistic cultural contexts with distal parenting patterns because of their focus on meeting the individual infant's needs and fostering psychological autonomy (e.g., Keller, 2013;Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000). However, Mary Ainsworth's first descriptions of behaviors that reflect sensitive responsiveness were based on her observations in Uganda (Ainsworth, 1967).…”