What We Need To Know To Assess Children’s Attachment Relationships

Standardized methods like the Strange 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.

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

Key Points

1. The assessment of children’s attachment relationships requires consideration of the sociocultural environment and caregiving network. Standardized methods focusing solely on mother-child attachment cannot demonstrate attachment relationships universally.
2. Across three cultural groups in Costa Rica (urban middle-class families in San José, rural families in Guanacaste, and rural indigenous Bribri families), children’s social networks and caregiving arrangements differed substantially.
3. In Guanacaste and among the Bribri, children were cared for by extensive networks of caregivers, facilitating potentially multiple attachment figures. In San José, care was more exclusive with fewer caregivers.
4. Concepts of attachment figures were culturally specific, differing in caregiving responsibilities. Female caregivers’ roles were more similar across groups than male caregivers’ roles.
5. An average of 3.3 potential attachment figures per child were identified in Guanacaste, 2.2 in San José, and 3 in Bribri. While the mother was a potential attachment figure for all children, non-maternal figures like grandmothers and siblings also served attachment functions.

Rationale

Attachment theory claims 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 patterns studied 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

1. Caregiving setting: In Guanacaste, settings were balanced across one-child-one-caregiver (n = 8), one-child-multiple-caregivers (n = 12), multiple-children-one-caregiver (n = 7), and multiple-children-multiple caregivers (n = 7). In San José, one-child-one-caregiver predominated (n = 12). Among Bribri, multiple-children-multiple-caregivers predominated (n = 13).
2. Caregiving network: Children in Guanacaste were cared for by 4.65 caregivers on average. Networks consisted of parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts/uncles, and other kin. Children in San José were cared for by 3 caregivers on average, predominantly parents. Bribri children were cared for by 3.92 caregivers on average, including fathers, grandmothers, aunts, siblings, and other kin.
3. Favorite caregivers: An average of 2.35 per child in Guanacaste, 1.55 in San José, and 2.16 among Bribri. While most children favored mothers, many also favored other kin in rural areas.
4. Concepts of attachment figures: Specific caregiving responsibilities constituted attachment relationships, differing by gender and across groups. Key roles were psychobiological regulation (except Bribri men), social/cultural learning (except San José), play (except Bribri women), time spent with child, and residential proximity.
5. Potential attachment figures: An average of 3.3 per child in Guanacaste, 2.2 in San José, and 3 among Bribri were identified. While all mothers qualified, grandmothers, fathers, siblings and other kin also met culture-specific criteria.

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 methods applied cross-culturally cannot sufficiently determine or compare attachment. Locally-adapted, qualitative approaches attending to culture-specific care and concepts are necessary.

Strengths

1. Inclusion of rural, non-WEIRD cultural groups
2. Analysis of caregiving contexts and favorite caregivers from a child’s perspective
3. Identification of culture and gender-specific attachment concepts
4. Derivation of empirical criteria for potential attachment figures
5. Multi-informant data from extensive interviews with cultural experts, mothers, and other caregivers

Limitations

1. Small sample sizes restrict generalizability
2. Limited child age range (7-20 months)
3. Did not directly assess attachment relationships or attachment behavior in stressful situations
4. Did not examine developmental outcomes associated with different attachment networks or figures

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.

Intervention programs, training, policy, and court decisions concerning childcare arrangements and custody informed by attachment theory require reformulation to encompass non-maternal and multiple attachment relationships where normative.

Advocate for public policies supporting diverse caregiving arrangements informed by expanded attachment evidence. Influence institutes like family courts and hospitals through dissemination.

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

1. How might assessing attachment relationships differ in additional cultural groups not examined here, such as individualistic Western cultures? What caregiving patterns or attachment concepts might emerge?
2. Could the differences found across cultural groups stem not from cultural factors but rather from rural versus urban living contexts? How might we disentangle these dimensions?
3. What methods could be used to examine potential long-term socioemotional, cognitive or health outcomes associated with multiple attachment figures compared to single figures? What outcomes might we expect to see?
4. How might notions of secure or insecure attachment be affected by the identification of multiple attachment figures? Could multiple attachments infer greater attachment security?