Standardized methods like theStrange Situation Procedure(Ainsworth et al., 1978) are widely used to assess attachment, presuming universality.
However, extensive research documents differences in socialization and attachment across cultures (Gaskins, 2013; Harwood et al., 1995; Otto & Keller, 2014; Quinn & Mageo, 2013), especially regarding the prevalence of multiple caregiving and attachment figures, contrasting the mother-centered dyadic focus of common measures.
This questions the validity of applying the current methodology universally without asserting contextual appropriateness, especially in non-Western, non-middle-class contexts where caregiving realities diverge.
strange situation
Key Points
Rationale
Attachment theoryclaims universality in its assumptions about early relationships, however research has been predominantly conducted using Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) populations (Keller & Kärtner, 2013).
Caregiving patternsstudied often assume a nuclear family structure and mother-child dyad. However, ethnographic research documents high variability in caregiving arrangements and attachment networks across cultural contexts (Keller & Chaudhary, 2017; LeVine et al., 1994; Seymour, 2013).
This evidence questions utilizing standardized methods in non-Western contexts. As attachment theory significantly impacts real-world applications, these discrepancies are problematic for interventions, policy, and practice (Rosabal-Coto et al., 2017).
This study aimed to demonstrate assessing attachment requires first understanding the caregiving context.
Researchers examined children’s social experiences and caregiving networks in which attachments could emerge within three cultural groups in Costa Rica. They also analyzed culturally-specific concepts of attachment figures.
Method
The study was qualitative and exploratory, utilizing semi-structured interviews with cultural key informants (n= 56) and families of infants ages 7-20 months (N = 65) across three sites: Guanacaste (n= 20), San José (n= 20), and Bribri (n= 25).
In total, 179 caregiver interviews were conducted. Questions concerned caregiving routines, roles, time spent with child, and each caregiver’s perspective on the child’s favorite person. Sociodemographic data was also collected.
Based on criteria from Gaskins et al. (2017), potential attachment figures were identified as caregivers with privileged capacity for (a) psychobiological regulation/protection, (b) facilitating social learning, and (c) stimulating exploration.
Analyses examined caregiving setting, network size and roles, favorite caregivers, time spent with child, concepts of attachment figures, and number of potential attachment figures.
Results
Insight
This research effectively demonstrates assessing attachment relationships requires understanding the caregiving context, not only mother-child relationships.
Children’s relational experiences, favorite caregivers, and concepts determining important figures significantly differed across cultural groups.
Importantly, the study revealed attachment roles and networks extend beyond mothers. Grandmothers, siblings, and other kin emerge as key attachment figures in rural Costa Rican communities based on ethnographic analysis.
Urban middle-class families may resemble Western nuclear family patterns in exclusive, dyadic attachments. Yet, multiple caregivers and attachments prevailed in rural areas.
Standardized methodsapplied cross-culturally cannot sufficiently determine or compare attachment. Locally-adapted, qualitative approaches attending to culture-specific care and concepts are necessary.
Strengths
Limitations
Implications
This research carries important implications for attachment theory, research, and practice. Findings seriously question attachment theory’s presumed universality and undermine utilizing global standardized measures.
Diverse cultural groups exhibit multiplicity in caregiving and attachment, expanding beyond mother-child dyads. Locally-adapted, qualitative and ethnographic approaches should precede attachment assessments cross-culturally.
References
Primary reference
Schmidt, W. J., Keller, H., & Rosabal Coto, M. (2021). Development in context: What we need to know to assess children’s attachment relationships.Developmental Psychology, 57(12), 2206–2219.https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001262
Other references
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum.
Gaskins, S. (2013). The puzzle of attachment: Unscrambling maturational and cultural contributions to the development of early emotional bonds. In N. Quinn & J. Mageo (Eds.),Attachment reconsidered(pp. 33–64). Palgrave Macmillan.
Harwood, R. L., Miller, J. G., & Irizarry, N. L. (1995).Culture and attachment: Perceptions of the child in context. Guilford Press.
Keller, H., & Kärtner, J. (2013). The cultural solution of universal developmental tasks. In M. J. Gelfand, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.),Advances in culture and psychology(Vol. 3, pp. 63–116). Oxford University Press.
Keller, H., & Chaudhary, N. (2017). Is the mother essential for attachment? Models of care in different cultures. In H. Keller & K. Bard (Eds.),The cultural nature of attachment: Contextualizing relationships and development(pp. 109–137). MIT Press.
Otto, H., & Keller, H. (Eds.). (2014).Different faces of attachment: Cultural variations on a universal human need. Cambridge University Press.
Quinn, N., & Mageo, J. M. (Eds.). (2013).Attachment reconsidered. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosabal-Coto, M., Quinn, N., Keller, H., Vicedo, M., Chaudhary, N., & Morelli, G. A. (2017). Real-world applications of attachment theory. In H. Keller & K. Bard (Eds.),The cultural nature of attachment: Contextualizing relationships and development(pp. 335–354). MIT Press.
Keep Learning
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
