So, remember when we talked about how attachment isn't just one or the other – it's not just biological or social, but a groovy mix of both? Well, a team of rockstar researchers - Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) - decided to explore this. They conducted a cross-cultural meta-analysis of studies on attachment styles using the "Strange Situation" paradigm in eight different countries.

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's Rollercoaster Research

They set out on a quest for truth by hand-picking studies to compare, ending up with 32 studies from 8 different countries (USA, Germany, UK, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, China, and Israel) involving 1,990 participants. Picture them going through stacks of papers to make sure they were comparing apples to apples!

They were on a mission to see the percentage of children in these countries that were classified as having secure, avoidant, or ambivalent attachment.

Star-Spangled Attachment

After going through piles of studies from the USA (18 in total), they found that the average American kiddo's attachment styles roughly lined up with Ainsworth’s findings: 20% avoidant (A), 70% secure (B), and 10% ambivalent (C). But hold on, this was an average – there were still big differences between kids in the same country.

Think of it like ice cream flavors. Even though the most popular flavor might be vanilla (secure attachment), some kids prefer chocolate (avoidant attachment) or strawberry (ambivalent attachment).

Not-So-Uniform Attachment

The big reveal of this study was that there was almost 1.5 times more variation in attachment styles within a single country (intracultural variation) than between different countries (cross-cultural variation). You'd think that kids growing up in the same culture would be more alike, right? Well, not so much!

Money Matters... For Attachment?

One of the possible reasons for this wide variation within a country might be the family's socio-economic status. Think of it like this: families living in Beverly Hills might raise their kids differently from those living in poorer parts of LA. Middle-class professional families seemed to have more secure attachments compared to lower-class families, who had more avoidant and especially ambivalent attachment styles.

Culture Clash and Attachment Styles

But let's not forget, there were still differences between cultures (cross-cultural variation). The secure attachment (B) was the reigning king in all cultures, but avoidant attachment (A) was seen more in Western European countries, while ambivalent attachment (C) was more popular in Israel and Japan.

So why was this? Well, some believe Western European cultures tend to encourage independence in infants, which could lead to avoidant attachment. In contrast, the higher incidence of ambivalent attachment in Israel and Japan could be due to kids having less contact with strangers. It's like going to a party - if you're used to mingling and making friends, you'll feel secure. But if you're used to sticking to the people you know, you might feel anxious when meeting new people.

After reading these studies, what do you think? Is attachment more biological, psychological, or sociocultural? How does this fit with the nature vs nurture debate? Remember, there's no single correct answer. It's like a good detective novel – you need to piece together the clues to solve the mystery.