13.5.4: Attachment as Related to Biology and Culture

Learning Objectives

1. Explain how biological systems influence stress responses in relation to attachment styles.
2. Identify how genetic variations interact with caregiving to shape attachment outcomes.
3. Discuss the long-term developmental and health implications of secure and insecure attachment from a biological perspective.
4. Compare how attachment behaviors and expressions differ between individualistic and collectivist cultural contexts.
5. Analyze how cultural practices influence caregiving and the formation of secure attachment relationships.

The Biology of Attachment

Attachment not only involves emotional bonds but also has strong biological roots that affect the brain and body. Research has found that the body's stress response system plays a critical role in attachment. How infants react to separation from their caregiver or novel situations are not just behavioral—they also involve physiological changes that are deeply embedded in biology. One key component in this system is the hormone cortisol, which activates the fight-or-flight response and impacts the immune system. The patterns of cortisol production differ based on attachment style, reflecting how children react to stress and how their bodies manage it.

• Infants with an ambivalent attachment style often show an overactive stress response. They become extremely distressed when separated from their caregiver, and even after the caregiver's return, they may not be easily soothed. This overreaction to stress is associated with high levels of cortisol, indicating that the child’s body is in a constant state of alertness. Children’s brains may be programmed to remain vigilant due to inconsistent or unpredictable caregiving experiences, leading to heightened stress responses in the future (Gunnar et al., 2007).
• On the other hand, infants with an avoidant attachment style tend to show a lower level of stress response. These children may appear emotionally distant or avoidant of their caregiver, even in situations of distress. This underactive stress response system might reflect a numbing or shutting down of emotional responses as a way to cope with a lack of emotional availability from the caregiver. These children may exhibit lower levels of cortisol, signaling that they may not react strongly to distressing events. However, this underreaction can indicate an inability to form healthy emotional bonds, which can impact social and emotional development (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008).
• Children with disorganized attachment show inconsistent and contradictory behaviors, often approaching and avoiding the caregiver simultaneously. Research suggests that these children exhibit higher levels of a protein called C-reactive protein (CRP), which is linked to inflammation in the body. High levels of CRP can signal chronic stress and lower resistance to infection or disease. This might reflect the child’s constant internal conflict and confusion about their attachment figure, leading to higher biological stress markers and a compromised immune system. Disorganized attachment is often the result of unpredictable or frightening caregiving behaviors, leaving the child in a state of emotional and physiological distress (Carlson et al., 2009).

Genetic Influences

In addition to physiological responses, genetics also plays a role in shaping attachment behaviors. One of the key genetic factors involved in attachment is the 5-HTTLPR gene, which influences how the brain processes serotonin, a neurotransmitter that regulates mood, emotion, and stress. Research has shown that variations in this gene can affect a child’s susceptibility to environmental factors, such as the quality of caregiving, and influence attachment styles.

• Infants with a short allele of the 5-HTTLPR gene are more sensitive to environmental stressors. They may be more likely to develop insecure attachment styles if exposed to inconsistent or neglectful caregiving. For example, children with the short allele may have an increased risk of developing ambivalent or disorganized attachment styles if their caregivers are inconsistent in their responses.
• Infants with a long allele of the 5-HTTLPR gene tend to have a more robust and resilient stress response system, making them more likely to form secure attachments even in challenging or less-than-ideal caregiving environments. These children may exhibit more adaptive responses to stress, with lower cortisol levels and more effective emotional regulation (Kaufman et al., 2004).

Implications for Development and Health

The biological underpinnings of attachment not only affect emotional development but also have lasting impacts on physical health. Children with secure attachment styles tend to show better overall health and resilience to stress. In contrast, those with insecure attachment styles may face challenges such as increased vulnerability to anxiety, depression, and chronic health problems. The way a child’s body responds to stress—whether it’s an overactive or underactive system—can influence their behavior and emotional regulation well into adulthood.

Cultural Differences

Attachment theory has traditionally been rooted in Western concepts of child development, where secure attachment is defined as the ability to form a close, trusting bond with caregivers and to use them as a secure base for exploring the world. However, as attachment theory has expanded to a global context, it has become clear that cultural norms and values shape how attachment is expressed and understood. In different cultural contexts, the characteristics of secure attachment may look different, even though the underlying concept of attachment as a bond between child and caregiver remains universal.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\). Countries colored green have cultures that are more individualistic than the world average. Countries colored in red have relatively collectivistic cultures. Image by Beugelsdijk & Welzel is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0.

In individualist societies, such as the United States and many Western European countries, independence is a highly valued trait, and caregivers often encourage their children to explore and learn independently. In these contexts, secure attachment is often associated with the child’s ability to engage in independent play, explore the world, and return to the caregiver for comfort when needed.

However, in cultures that emphasize collectivism or interdependence, secure attachment may look quite different. Secure attachment in collectivist societies, such as those in East Asia, may focus more on the child’s ability to maintain close, ongoing bonds with caregivers. In these cultures, secure attachment is less about the child's ability to separate from the caregiver and more about maintaining closeness and emotional synchronization with the caregiver. Children in these cultures may remain physically closer to their caregivers for longer periods. They may exhibit more distress during separations, but these behaviors are viewed as normal expressions of attachment rather than signs of insecurity. Caregivers may be more likely to practice co-sleeping or engage in other forms of physical closeness, which are seen as essential for fostering security and emotional regulation in the child (Keller, 2013).

Cultural Influence on Attachment Behaviors

Culture also plays a role in how attachment behaviors are interpreted. For example, in some cultures, emotional expression may be seen as inappropriate or overly dependent, while in others, expressing vulnerability and seeking comfort may be more acceptable. These cultural differences impact how caregivers respond to children’s emotional needs and how children express attachment behaviors.

In some non-Western cultures, it is common for multiple caregivers (such as grandparents, extended family members, or other community figures) to be involved in the child's care. This can result in a broader network of secure attachment figures, and the child’s sense of security may not be limited to one primary caregiver. Still, it may extend to the extended family or community. This can contribute to a different understanding of security, where the emotional bond with caregivers is not confined to a single individual but distributed across multiple relationships (Choi et al., 2014).

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\). A young toddler with his hand on his grandmother's leg. Image by Kaan Durmuş is licensed by Pexels.

Implications on Attachment Research and Practice

Understanding the cultural context of attachment is essential for interpreting attachment behaviors and promoting positive caregiving practices. Attachment theory offers a universal framework for understanding the significance of relationships in early childhood; however, the expression of secure attachment can vary across different cultural norms and values. Caregivers and early childhood professionals should be aware of these cultural differences to avoid misinterpreting attachment behaviors and to support children in developing secure bonds in culturally appropriate ways.

References, Contributors and Attributions

Carlson, E. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2009). The influence of attachment theory and research: A lifetime of reflections. Attachment & Human Development, 11(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730902814722

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Choi, M., & Kim, C. (2014). The effects of cultural practices on child-rearing and attachment in East Asia. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413514494

Gunnar, M. R., Frenn, K., Wewerka, S., & Van Ryzin, M. (2007). Moderate versus severe stress in early childhood and the development of stress reactivity and regulation. Developmental Psychobiology, 49(4), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20231

Kaufman, J., Plotsky, P. M., & Nemeroff, C. B. (2004). The neurobiological consequences of early stress and childhood maltreatment. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 871-887. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404000806

Keller, H. (2013). Attachment and culture: A comparison of Germany and Cameroon. Attachment & Human Development, 15(3), 262-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.789907