Cultural Variations in Attachment: A Comparative Analysis of Drawing Symbols

Cultural Variations in Attachment: A Comparative Analysis of Drawing Symbols

Introduction

Bowlby’s attachment theory posits that children are born with an innate need for connection to at least one primary caregiver, who provides support and responsiveness (Guerrero, 2021, paragraph 6). This theory is complemented by the hypothesis that the desire for food is the initial motivator for a child to form attachments with specific individuals (Heard, 2018). Bowlby further emphasized that this attachment relationship serves as a protective factor for survival, and if this bond is not established by age 5, it can lead to unique mental and social challenges (Guerrero, 2021).

Gernhardt et al. (2016) conducted a research project using drawings created by 6-year-olds to assess and measure attachment. The assumption was that children express their emotional state and happiness through drawings, making a family picture an indicator of attachment ties within the family (Gernhardt et al., 2016). Several assessment tools have been developed to evaluate attachment quality in drawings, including the Checklist of Drawing Signs and Global Rating Scales (Gernhardt et al., 2016). As these inventories became more widespread, questions arose about their relevance across different cultures. Gernhardt et al. (2016) hypothesized that drawing symbols would differ across cultures due to cultural and socialization influences. To investigate the cross-cultural reliability of attachment classifications, they conducted a study using the two main measurement tools on samples from two diverse cultural populations.

Cultural A represented “western urban middle-class households with formidable educational attainments, parenthood in later years, a small number of children, and nuclear family structures from Berlin, Germany.” On the other hand, Cultural B represented “non-western rustic subsistence-agriculture families with scant educational accomplishment, early parenthood, a significant number of children, and lengthy multigenerational homes from NW province of Cameroon” (Gernhardt et al., 2016, p. 1070). Socialization in Culture A emphasized independence, fostering an autonomous child, equal relationships, and close contact, while Culture B prioritized interdependence, respect for elders, authority, and multiple caregivers providing care with physical contact to soothe the child.

Results and Implications

The findings of the study supported the hypothesis that attachment classifications varied significantly across the two cultural groups based on drawing symbols (Gernhardt et al., 2016, p. 1074). As predicted, Culture A demonstrated secure attachments, while Culture B exhibited insecure attachments. However, using a uniform measurement tool that does not consider cultural differences raises questions about the validity and meaning of secure and insecure attachment across diverse societies (Gernhardt et al., 2016, p. 1076).

Cultural A and B possess distinct social and cultural characteristics that influence attachment, reactions, and childhood development. The disparities in disciplinary goals of the mothers in these cultures highlight the impact of societal and cultural attributes on attachment styles. It is essential to recognize that these differences do not imply that one culture is superior to the other in this context; rather, they showcase the variations in attachment formation across cultures.

Cross-Cultural Attachment Research

The study by Gernhardt et al. (2016) contributes to the growing body of research on cross-cultural attachment. Mooya, Sichimba, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2016) conducted a study on infant-mother and infant-sibling attachment in Zambia, emphasizing the significance of cultural context in shaping attachment patterns. This research demonstrated that attachment is influenced by cultural practices and caregiving norms, suggesting that attachment theories should be culturally sensitive.

Conclusion

Bowlby’s attachment theory emphasizes the importance of a child’s connection with a primary caregiver for healthy development. Gernhardt et al. (2016) expanded on this theory by examining attachment through drawing symbols in two distinct cultural groups. The results demonstrated that attachment classifications varied significantly across the cultures, prompting the need for culturally sensitive assessment tools. This study highlights the importance of considering cultural variations in attachment research to gain a comprehensive understanding of human development across diverse societies.

References:

Guerrero, L. K. (2021). Attachment theory: A communication perspective. In Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 299-313). Routledge.
Heard, D., McCluskey, U., & Lake, B. (2018). Attachment therapy with adolescents and adults: Theory and practice post Bowlby. Routledge.
Gernhardt, A., Vesker, M., Hiller, W., & Nestoriuc, Y. (2016). Cultural variations in attachment: A comparison of drawing symbols in German and Cameroonian preschool children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(8), 1069-1085. DOI: 10.1177/0022022116662409
Mooya, H., Sichimba, F., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. (2016). Infant–mother and infant–sibling attachment in Zambia. Attachment & Human Development, 18(6), 618–635. DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2016.1235216