Attachment avoidance and the cultural ﬁt hypothesis: A...

Personal Relationships, 17 (2010), 107–126. Printed in the United States of America.Copyright © 2010 IARR

Attachment avoidance and the cultural fithypothesis: A cross-cultural investigation

MIKE FRIEDMAN,a W. STEVEN RHOLES,b JEFFRY SIMPSON,c MICHAELBOND,d ROLONDO DIAZ-LOVING,e AND CLARE CHANd

aCatholic University of Louvain; bTexas A&M University; cUniversity of Minnesota;dChinese University of Hong Kong; eAutonomous University of Mexico

AbstractThis study examined the impact of attachment avoidance on relationship outcomes. A “cultural fit” hypothesis,which states that individual differences in personality should be associated with relationship problems if theyencourage patterns of behavior that are incongruent with cultural norms, was investigated. It was hypothesized thatattachment avoidance, a style of relationship in which emotional distance and independence are emphasized, wouldbe more strongly associated with relationship problems in more collectivist societies (Hong Kong and Mexico) thanin a more individualist one (the United States), given the greater emphasis placed on closeness and harmony inrelationships in collectivist cultures. As predicted, associations between avoidant attachment and relationshipproblems were stronger in Hong Kong and Mexico than in the United States.

Understanding when, how, and why majorindividual differences are associated withthe perception, functioning, and outcomesof close relationships is a growing area ofresearch in the field of interpersonal relation-ships. Most of the studies addressing theseissues, however, have been conducted in theUnited States or other Western societies. Con-sequently, the role that cultural differencesmight play in the strength of the associationbetween individual differences and relation-ship outcomes remains largely unknown. Thegoal of the present research is to begin fill-ing this important gap in the literature. To doso, we examine ways in which culture andindividual differences might interact to shaperelationship satisfaction and other relationship

Mike Friedman, Catholic University of Louvain, Bel-gium; W. Steven Rholes, Department of Psychology,Texas A&M University; Jeffry Simpson, University ofMinnesota; Michael Bond, Chinese University of HongKong, Hong Kong; Rolonda Diaz-Loving, AutonomousUniversity of Mexico; Clare Chan, Chinese University ofHong Kong, Hong Kong.

Correspondence should be addressed to W. StevenRholes, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M Univer-sity, Mail Stop 4231, College Station, TX 77843, e-mail:[email protected].

outcomes. In particular, we test a “cultural fit”hypothesis, which states that individual differ-ences should be more strongly correlated withrelationship problems and relationship dissat-isfaction if they encourage patterns of thought,behavior, or affect that are incongruent witha given cultural group’s values, beliefs, andexpectations about close relationships.

The present study focuses on individualdifferences in avoidant romantic attachmentstyle in the cultures of Hong Kong, Mex-ico, and the United States. We propose thatwithin each of these cultures, values, expecta-tions, and norms encourage emotional close-ness, interdependence, and harmony in closeheterosexual relationships. We further proposethat the value placed on closeness and har-mony is greater in collectivist than in indi-vidualist cultures. Thus, we hypothesize thatthe avoidant attachment style, which encour-ages greater emotional distance and indepen-dence over interdependence, should be morestrongly correlated with relationship dissat-isfaction and other relationship problems incollectivist cultures (Mexico and Hong Kongin this study) than in an individualist one (theUnited States).

107

108 M. Friedman et al.

In this section, we explain the basis ofthe cultural fit hypothesis in detail. We firstreview studies showing that levels of col-lectivism and individualism are different inHong Kong, the United States, and Mex-ico. We next review differences between col-lectivist and individualist cultures in valuesand ideals relating to close relationships. Wethen describe attachment styles, focusing onthe avoidant style, and discuss studies fromthe “person–culture fit” literature that indi-cate that culture–person mismatches are oftenassociated with psychological discomfort.

Cultural collectivism and individualism inHong Kong, Mexico, and the United States

The three cultures we sampled were selectedbecause they vary in cultural levels of individ-ualism versus collectivism. Studying individ-ualism in 50 nations, Hofstede (2001) foundthat the United States was the most indi-vidualistic country, whereas Hong Kong wasone of the least, ranking 37th. Mexico, whichranked 30th, was nearer the middle of the dis-tribution. In a recent meta-analysis of socialpsychological research on individualism andcollectivism, Oyserman, Coon, and Kem-melmeier (2002) found that the United Stateswas more individualistic than Hong Kongand that Mexico fell between these coun-tries. Several other studies have supported theclaim that Hong Kong is more collectivistthan the United States and most other Westerncultures (e.g., Chinese Culture Connection,1987; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martınez,2000; Kashima et al., 2005; Triandis, Chen, &Chan, 1998; Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989).Although research on Mexico is compara-tively sparse, several investigators have con-cluded that Mexico is more collectivistic thanthe United States (e.g., Diaz-Guerrero, 1975,1977; Diaz-Loving, 2005; Diaz-Loving &Draguns, 1999; Shkodriani & Gibbons, 1995).

Prescriptive norms in close relationshipsin collectivist and individualist cultures

Researchers have also examined differencesin the values and ideals that define roman-tic relationships, within both Chinese and

Western cultural contexts (e.g., Goodwin,1999; Rapson & Hatfield, 2005). A centraltheme in Chinese culture is the importanceplaced on relational closeness and harmony.This societal imperative has been tracedto Confucianism (Bond & Hwang, 1986;Hwang, 2000; Yum, 1988), which main-tains that human relationships are the basisof society (Yum, 1988). A key to under-standing relationships within Chinese cul-ture is the sense of interdependency betweenrelationship partners and their strong “other-orientation.” Indeed, attending to and respond-ing to the needs and wishes of others arethe foundation upon which viable relation-ships are based in Chinese culture (Goodwin& Tang, 1996).

Accordingly, researchers have argued thatqualities that promote closeness and harmonyshould be especially attractive to potentialrelationship partners in the Chinese culture(Bond & Hwang, 1986). Consistent withthis argument, several studies have documen-ted the importance of closeness in Chineserelationships. For example, maintaining har-mony in the marital relationship is viewedas very important among married couplesin urban China (Pimentel, 2000). Moreover,in Hong Kong, cultural collectivism is neg-atively related to a preference for auton-omy or independence in relationships (Hui &Villareal, 1989). A textual analysis of lovesongs has found that Chinese songs empha-size devotion, commitment, and loyalty morethan American songs do (Rothbaum & Tsang,1998). Goodwin (1999) suggests that giventhe greater need for affiliation and nurturancein persons who have a more collectivist orien-tation, meeting these needs in close relation-ships should be more important among theChinese than among their more individualistcounterparts in the West.

Consistent with Goodwin’s (1999) anal-ysis, Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake, andWeisz (2000) suggest that romantic relation-ships in some East Asian cultures are basedon the concept of assurance or uncondi-tional loyalty between partners based on com-passion, friendship, and the elimination ofboundaries. Assurance derives from a cul-tural incentive structure that reinforces loyalty

Avoidance and culture fit 109

and commitment between partners and leadspartners to value companionable forms of lovethat involve close friendships and enduringcommitment. Compared with Western cul-tures, relationships in East Asian cultures arebased more on commitment and loyalty andless on romantic love. Emphasis is placed onthe pragmatics of relationships that foster har-mony, cohesion, intolerance for conflict, anda cherishing of the relationship.

Several theoretical models also imply thatcloseness and harmony in relationships areimportant values within Mexican culture (Diaz-Guerrero, 1975; Diaz-Loving, 2005). Giventhe broad cultural imperative in Mexican soci-ety to maintain harmony with others, stylesof interpersonal interaction that promote har-mony, interdependence, and emotional stabilityare especially valued in Mexico (Diaz-Loving,2005). Diaz-Guerrero (1975) notes that Mex-ican culture places considerable emphasison behaviors that facilitate physical, emo-tional, or social closeness and on values thatencourage warm and nonconfrontational inter-personal interactions. In sum, research onrelationships in collectivist cultures suggeststhat harmony and closeness are highly valuedin Hong Kong and Mexico and that tolerancefor relationships that do not meet these val-ues may be lower in these cultures than in theUnited States (Goodwin, 1999).

Attachment orientations

According to attachment theory (Bowlby,1969, 1973, 1980), human beings are endowedwith an innate attachment system that moti-vates infants, children, and adults to seeksecurity and comfort from their attachmentfigures during stressful times. In infancy andchildhood (when individual differences inattachment styles are being formed), prin-cipal caregivers may or may not provideforms of care that engender feelings of secu-rity and safety. If individuals’ needs forsafety and security are sufficiently met whenthey are distressed, they tend to developa secure attachment orientation (Ainsworth,Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). If, however,individuals have caregivers who either rejecttheir bids for closeness and comfort when

they are distressed or provide inconsistent orunpredictable care, such persons expect thatattachment figures cannot be counted on to bedependable, emotionally available, and caring.

Adult romantic attachment styles are mea-sured along two orthogonal dimensions (Bren-nan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Simpson, Rholes,& Phillips, 1996): avoidance and anxiety. Per-sons who are highly avoidant have learnedto avoid rejection from attachment figuresby maintaining psychological and emotionaldistance and independence. Those who arehighly anxious believe that their attachmentfigures may abandon them either physicallyor emotionally. In order to get their needs foremotional support and care met, highly anx-ious people exaggerate sources of distress intheir lives and their need for help from oth-ers, and they cling to their partners to staveoff abandonment.

Mikulincer and Shaver (2003, 2007) havereviewed the many ways in which highlyavoidant persons maintain emotional dis-tance from their partners. The picture thatemerges for avoidant adults is one of limitedcloseness and intimacy, relationship dishar-mony, and relationship dissatisfaction. Moreavoidant people are less likely to seek emo-tional support from their partners when theyare upset and are more reluctant to pro-vide care when their partners truly need it(Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992), limit-ing opportunities to build deeper intimacy andcloseness. More avoidant people also curtailintimacy by avoiding self-disclosure and turn-ing away from those who disclose to them(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Bradford,Feeney, & Campbell, 2002), and they knowless about their romantic partners’ emotionallives and are less interested in learning moreabout their partners’ lives (Rholes, Simpson,Tran, Martin, & Friedman, 2007).

Highly avoidant people also are less empa-thic and less altruistic (Mikulincer, Shaver,Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005), and they handleconflict in ways that tend to generate dishar-mony. When distressed, more avoidant indivi-duals tend to become angry with their partners(Rholes, Simpson, & Orina, 1999). Finally,they are generally dissatisfied with their rela-tionships (Mikulincer, Florian, Cowan, &


Cowan, 2002; Simpson, 1990), and theirromantic partners tend to be more dissatis-fied with them in return (Collins, Cooper,Albino, & Allard, 2002; Davila, Bradbury, &Fincham, 1998; Simpson, 1990).

Although attachment anxiety is not thefocus of the present study, more anxiouslyattached adults chronically worry about beingabandoned, and they are concerned that theirpersistent needs for care and affection willremain unfulfilled. Highly anxious individu-als view their partners as largely unsupportive(Rholes, Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2001),they perceive greater conflict in their rela-tionships than their partners do (Campbell,Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005), and theymanage conflict more poorly (Pistole, 2003;Simpson et al., 1996). Highly anxious individ-uals also tend to be less altruistic (Mikulinceret al., 2005), focusing on meeting their ownemotional needs in relationships over provid-ing for the emotional needs of their part-ners (Rholes, Peatzold, & Friedman, 2008).Although they are similar to highly avoidantpersons in certain ways, highly anxious per-sons differ fundamentally in terms of theirdesire to form close, intimate relationshipsand their hypervigilance toward and concernsabout being abandoned by their romantic part-ners.

Avoidance is the variable of primary con-cern in the present investigation. The emphasisthat more avoidant people place on psycho-logical distance and their tendency to eschewinterdependence with their partners suggeststhat their behavior may be highly incongru-ent with the prescriptive norms of collectivistcultures.

Person–culture fit

Studies of person–culture fit have revealedthat perceived or actual differences betweenan individual and the culture in which heor she is situated are related to psychologi-cal discomfort. The concept of person–culturefit has been widely investigated by organi-zational psychologists, who have repeatedlyfound that less concordance between the char-acteristics of an individual and his or herworkplace culture is associated with poorerpsychological outcomes (e.g., decreased job

satisfaction) and more negative perceptionsof the environment (e.g., decreased organi-zational commitment, increased intentions toquit; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmer-man, & Johnson, 2005; O’Reilly, Chatman, &Caldwell, 1991).

More pertinent to the present investigationare studies examining lack of fit between indi-vidual and cultural characteristics. Much ofthis research has focused on how sojourn-ers fit into their host cultures. Some hasaddressed “cultural distance,” which is thesubjective difference between one’s homeand one’s host culture. Perceived culturaldistance predicts greater difficulties in psycho-logical adjustment, including increased ten-sion, depression, and anger (Ward & Searle,1991) as well as lower life satisfaction,more physical health problems, and some-what greater depression (Chirkov, Lynch, &Niwa, 2005). Similar effects have been foundusing other operationalizations of cultural fit.For example, for American sojourners in Sin-gapore, the discrepancy between individuallevels of extraversion and societal norms forextraverted behavior predict greater depres-sive symptoms (Ward & Chang, 1997).

Comparable effects also have been found instudies investigating the impact of individualdifferences in independent versus interdepen-dent self-construal. Among Asian visitors tothe United States, for example, higher lev-els of independent self-construal (congruentwith U.S. culture) predict better psychologicaladjustment to life in the United States (Oguri& Gudykunst, 2002). Similarly, a study ofAsian graduate students beginning their stud-ies in the United States has revealed thathigher interdependent self-construal (incon-gruent with U.S. culture) is related to greaterperceived stress (Cross, 1995). A cross-cultural study conducted in Australia and EastAsia examined the concordance of individualand societal characteristics in a work con-text (Parkes, Bochner, & Schneider, 2001) andfound interactions between cultural contextand self-construal, such that workers who hadmore interdependent self-construals displayedespecially strong commitment to their jobs inAsian organizations compared with Australianones. A similar interaction indicated that more


interdependent individuals also had longertenure in Asian, but not in Australian, orga-nizations. There are, therefore, two types ofcultural fit. One concerns the fit between one’sculture of origin and a separate host culture,and the other concerns the fit between an indi-vidual’s personality characteristics and his orher culture of origin (Ward & Chang, 1997).The present study investigates the latter type,namely, the fit between attachment styles andprescriptive cultural norms.

In sum, considerable research suggests thatincongruence between individual characteris-tics and the characteristics of one’s cultureor environment can generate negative out-comes. These effects are relatively robust,emerging across different definitions of cul-ture (e.g., workplace, societal) and across dif-ferent assessments of fit.

Hypotheses

On the basis of the theory and researchdescribed above, we hypothesized that avoid-ance would be positively correlated withrelationship dissatisfaction and other indica-tors of relationship problems within each ofthe cultures investigated. This hypothesis isgrounded on the idea that (a) many individu-als within each of the cultures investigatedin this study value closeness and harmonyin relationships, at least to some degree,and (b) greater attachment avoidance shouldresult in behaviors that make the attainmentof these relationship outcomes more diffi-cult. It is important to emphasize that weare not hypothesizing that avoidance itselfdiffers across cultures. We are merely sug-gesting that avoidant attachment should havethe same patterns of associations with out-comes measures in Hong Kong, Mexico,and the United States. We expect, however,that the consequences of avoidant behaviorfor relationships will be context sensitive.More specifically, greater avoidance shouldbe more strongly related to relationship prob-lems in cultures in which avoidant behav-ior is more inconsistent with prescriptivenorms regarding relationships. Accordingly,the central hypothesis of this study is that theassociation between avoidance and relation-ship dissatisfaction along with other markers

of relationship difficulties (e.g., greater con-flict, lower investment, and lower perceivedpartner support) will be more pronounced inthe more collectivist cultures (Hong Kongand Mexico) than in the United States. Thishypothesis is based on the research reviewedabove, which indicates that closeness and har-mony are more strongly valued in more col-lectivist cultures.

Unrelated to the cultural fit hypothesis, pre-vious cross-cultural research has also shownthat mean levels of avoidant and anxiousromantic attachment orientations tend to behigher in Pacific Rim cultures than in Westerncultures (Schmitt et al., 2004; Sprecher et al.,1994). We expected to replicate these findings.

We did not generate hypotheses con-cerning cultural differences in associationsbetween anxious attachment and relationshipoutcomes. Highly anxious individuals have astrong need and desire for greater closenessand intimacy. As a result, they might appearto fit well into collectivist cultures. Theirdesire for greater intimacy, however, is basedin part on their fear that relationship part-ners will leave them. Attachment-related anx-iety manifests itself in lower levels of trust.More anxious individuals’ obsessive quest forgreater closeness and security leads them tofeel and display greater negative affect (Simp-son, 1990) and to ruminate about worst caserelationship scenarios (Mikulincer & Florian,1998; Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). Moreanxious people are quick to perceive trust vio-lations (Mikulincer, 1998), and their relation-ships are characterized by less harmony andgreater conflict (Rholes et al., 2008; Simpsonet al., 1996). Thus, although their desire toseek greater closeness is consistent with thevalues and norms of more collectivistic cul-tures, the self-serving nature of their motivescoupled with the distrust that underlies theirquest for greater closeness ought to conflictwith the expectations and norms of more col-lectivist cultures. Because anxiety is multi-faceted and has features that could fit wellinto a collectivist cultural context, but also hasfeatures that could be in conflict with collec-tivist cultural contexts, we did not advancehypotheses about anxiety and cultural fit.


Method

Participants

Participants in each of the three cultures(Hong Kong, Mexico, and the United States)were university students. Mexican and U.S.participants took part in partial fulfillmentof a course requirement. Most Hong Kongparticipants also participated to partially fulfilla course requirement, though some received$50 HK (about $2.50 in U.S. dollars).

All participants were required to be cur-rently involved in a romantic relationshipthat had existed for at least 3 months. TheU.S. sample had 214 participants (99 male,112 female, and 3 who did not specify gen-der), with a mean age of 19.03 years (SD =1.23) and a mean relationship length of17.22 months (SD = 12.26). The Hong Kongsample consisted of 153 participants (71 male,82 female), with a mean age of 20.44 years(SD = 1.90) and a mean relationship lengthof 23.47 months (SD = 21.34). The Mexicansample included 200 participants (96 male,104 female), with a mean age of 23.34 years(SD = 3.49) and a mean relationship lengthof 28.70 months (SD = 29.49).

Materials

All questionnaires were translated from Eng-lish into Chinese and Spanish using back-translation techniques (Brislin, 1970). TheChinese version of the measures was back-translated by scholars at the Chinese Uni-versity of Hong Kong. The Spanish versionwas back-translated by scholars at NationalAutonomous University of Mexico. The ques-tionnaires used in this investigation are des-cribed below in their order of presentation.

An adapted version of Experience of CloseRelationships (ECR) measure by Brennanet al. (1998) was used to assess romanticattachment orientations. This 36-item mea-sure has two subscales, each consisting of18 items. Responses were made on 7-pointLikert-type scales ranging from 1 (disagreestrongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Scores couldrange from 18 to 126 for each subscale. Onesubscale measured avoidance and the othermeasured anxiety. Participants responded toeach subscale according to how they thought

and felt about romantic partners in general.Sample items from the avoidance subscaleare: “I prefer not to show partners how I feeldeep down” and “I find it relatively easy toget close to partners” (reverse scored). Sampleitems from the anxiety subscale are: “I worrya fair amount about losing partners” and “Mydesire to be very close sometimes scares peo-ple away.” In Hong Kong, Cronbach’s alphasfor the avoidance and anxiety subscales were.90 and .88, respectively. In the United States,they were .92 and .92, respectively. And inMexico, they were .79 and .88, respectively.

Satisfaction with the current romantic rela-tionship was measured using Hendrick’s Rela-tionship Satisfaction Scale (Hendrick, 1988).Sample items include: “How good is yourrelationship compared to most?” and “Howmany problems are there in your relation-ship?” (reverse scored). In two cultures, itemswere answered on 7-point Likert-type scales,from 1 (not at all/poorly) to 7 (a greatdeal/extremely well ). In one culture, this scalewas answered on an 8-point Likert-type scale,from 1 (not at all/poorly) to 8 (a greatdeal/extremely well ). To establish comparabil-ity, each item was transformed into a propor-tion so that scores on each item could rangefrom 0 to 1. All items were then summed tocreate a scale score for each participant. Scalescores could thus range from 0 to 7. Cron-bach’s alphas were .90 in Hong Kong, .83 inthe United States, and .81 in Mexico.

The amount of perceived social supportfrom the current romantic partner was mea-sured by Sarason, Levine, Basham, and Sara-son’s (1983) Social Support Questionnaire.This seven-item measure consists of Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (not at all ) to 7(very much). Scale scores could range from 7to 49. A sample item is: “How much can youcount on your partner to distract you fromyour worries when you feel under stress?”Cronbach’s alphas for Hong Kong, the UnitedStates, and Mexico were .90, .87, and .74,respectively.

Investment in the current romantic rela-tionship was measured using the InvestmentModel Scale (Rusbult, 1980). This scale mea-sures four facets of relationships: satisfac-tion, quality of alternatives, investments, and


commitment. Items were answered on 9-pointLikert-type scales. The last item of the invest-ment subscale was not given to one group ofparticipants. To compensate for this omission,proportional scores (i.e., the total sum of allscale items divided by the number of itemscompleted in each culture) were created. Thisresulted in one total investment score, whichcould range from 1 to 9 for each participant.Cronbach’s alpha for the investment scale inHong Kong, the United States, and Mexicowere .84, .84, and .81, respectively. Higherscores indicate larger investments in the cur-rent relationship, lower quality of relationshipalternatives, and greater relationship commit-ment and satisfaction.

Conflict in the current relationship wasmeasured by a five-item scale created for thisstudy. Items tapped the frequency of variousforms of conflict with one’s romantic partner.Items were answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 7 (almost everyday). Scale scores could range from 5 to 35.A sample item is: “How often do you andyour romantic partner experience conflict?”Alphas for the conflict scale in Hong Kong,the United States, and Mexico were .92, .82,and .93, respectively.

Results

Descriptive statistics

The means and standard deviations in eachculture for all of the variables are presentedin Table 1.

Preliminary analyses

Preliminary analyses were first conducted totest for congruence of factor structures of thequestionnaire measures across the three cul-tures. Because factor analyses combining rawdata from each culture confound individualand cultural differences, the data were firststandardized within each culture. The firstscale examined was the adapted ECR. In thecombined data from Hong Kong and Mexicoand in the U.S. data, a principal componentsfactor analysis followed by a varimax rota-tion suggested a clear two-factor structure forthe ECR. To empirically compare the fac-tor structures obtained in the combined HongKong/Mexico data with the structure obtainedin the U.S. data, the Hong Kong/Mexico vari-max matrix was Procrustes rotated to the U.S.structure (see McCrae, Zonderman, Costa,Bond, & Paunonen, 1996). The choice of theU.S. structure as the target for rotation wasbased on the fact that the ECR was devel-oped in the United States and the goal of thisresearch was to compare attachment processesin Hong Kong and Mexico to those in theUnited States. In the Procrustes rotated factorsolution, all variables loaded highly (.39 andhigher) on the appropriate factor (anxiety oravoidance). Furthermore, the factor congru-ence coefficients of the avoidance and anxi-ety subscales were .97 and .98, respectively,exceeding the suggested cutoff of .90 forestablishing factor equivalency (see Barrett,

Table 1. Means and standard deviations by culture for the primary variables

United States Hong Kong Mexico

M SD N M SD N M SD N

Avoidance 42.80 16.45 209 47.76 15.52 153 51.03 14.69 158Anxiety 61.02 20.51 209 68.41 16.75 150 63.61 20.74 166Relationship satisfaction 5.86 0.89 211 4.98 1.17 151 5.44 1.07 190Social support 44.03 4.57 213 37.11 6.41 153 40.14 8.25 198Investment 6.70 0.95 212 6.26 0.90 153 5.86 1.17 172Relationship conflict 14.06 5.76 214 15.11 6.31 152 14.30 5.49 196

Note. Ranges for the above scales are as follows: avoidance and anxiety = 7–126; relationship satisfaction = 0–7;social support = 7–49; investment = 1–9; relationship conflict = 5–35.


1986; McCrae et al., 1996).1 The congruenceof scale items was also tested (McCrae et al.,1996). Although no cutoff criterion has beenestablished for item congruence values, theanalyses indicated high levels of congruenceamong the individual ECR items, with anaverage item congruence of .97 and with 35of the 36 items showing congruence coeffi-cients above .91. In sum, these analyses sug-gest high levels of similarity in the factorstructure of the adapted ECR across cultures,both at the factor level and at the individualitem level.

Given that Procrustes rotations can beapplied only to multidimensional scales, fac-tor congruence for the other measures wasinvestigated using Tucker’s phi coefficient(see van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Prin-cipal components factor analyses within theHong Kong/Mexico data and within the U.S.data confirmed the appropriateness of a one-factor solution for all the other measures. Thecongruence of unidimensional factor struc-tures of the combined Hong Kong and Mexicodata compared with the U.S. data were asfollows: relationship satisfaction, .99; socialsupport, .97; investment, .96; and relationshipconflict, .99.2 These values exceed the tra-ditional .90 cutoff criterion for establishingfactor equivalency, indicating identical factorstructures for these measures in the Mexi-can and Hong Kong data in relation to theU.S. data.

Primary regression analyses

The goal of the primary regression analy-ses was to compare results from the morecollectivistic societies (Hong Kong and Mex-ico) in relation to the United States. In the

1. A separate Procrustes rotation comparing the HongKong ECR structure to that of the United Statesyielded congruence coefficients of .96 and .98 forthe avoidance and anxiety subscales, respectively. Anidentical analysis comparing the Mexico ECR struc-ture to that of the United States yielded congruencecoefficients of .92 and .94 for the avoidance and anx-iety subscales, respectively.

2. Analyses comparing the Hong Kong and Mexican dataseparately to the U.S. data revealed nearly identicalresults. In these analyses, the average congruencecoefficient was .98. No coefficients were below .96.

first step of each of the following analy-ses, participants’ age, relationship length (inmonths), and gender were entered as controlvariables.3 The predictor variables entered inthe next step of each analysis were partici-pants’ avoidance, anxiety, and two dummy-coded variables to contrast Hong Kong andMexico with the United States (see Cohen,Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).4 These con-trasts were chosen because the goal of theresearch was to compare more collectivist cul-tures to a more individualist one. All contin-uous predictor variables were centered priorto the analyses (Cohen et al., 2003). In thefinal step of each analysis, the following two-way interactions were entered: both dummyvariables by avoidance and, on an exploratorybasis, both dummy variables by anxiety.5 Fol-lowing guidelines established by Aiken andWest (1991), the main effects were interpretedin the regression step that contained the maineffects without the interaction terms. The two-way interactions were interpreted only in thestep that included all of the two-way inter-actions. The results of these analyses arereported below for each dependent variable.

3. The percentage of males and females did not differ sig-nificantly across cultures. One-way analyses of covari-ance (ANCOVAs) using culture as the independentvariable revealed significant cultural differences inage, F(2, 565) = 168.85, p < .001, and relationshiplength F(2, 559) = 14.19, p < .001. Tukey post hoctests for age revealed a linear pattern of means, suchthat participants were oldest in Mexico (M = 23.34),followed by Hong Kong (M = 20.44), followed by theUnited States (M = 19.03); all between-culture differ-ences were significant, all ps < .05. Tukey post hoctests for relationship length revealed that relationshiplength was greater in Hong Kong (M = 23.47) than inthe United States (M = 17.12), and greater in Mexico(M = 28.70) than in the United States, both ps < .05.There was no significant difference between relation-ship length in Hong Kong versus Mexico. Given thesesignificant differences, all of the primary analysesreported in this article statistically control for both ageand relationship length.

4. The coding scheme made the United States the referentgroup for comparisons. It does not allow one to com-pare the mean differences and interactions betweenHong Kong and Mexico. However, the goal of thisstudy was to investigate whether attachment scoreswere related to outcomes in Hong Kong and Mexicoin relation to the United States.

5. The three-way interactions between avoidance, anx-iety, and contrast 1, as well as between avoidance,anxiety, and contrast 2 were examined. No three-wayinteractions were found, all ts < 1.58, all ps > .05.


All of the significant effects that emerged arereported.

Relationship satisfaction

The analysis that treated relationship satis-faction as the dependent measure revealedthat, across cultures, avoidance, β = −.38,t (469) = 9.55, p < .001, and anxiety, β =−.25, t (469) = 6.34, p < .001, were bothnegatively related to relationship satisfaction.It also revealed that relationship satisfactionwas higher in the United States than in HongKong, β = −.27, t (469) = 6.10, p < .001.Although the association between avoidanceand relationship satisfaction was negative inall cultures, it was more strongly negative inHong Kong, β = −.23, t (465) = 4.85, p <

.001, and Mexico, β = −.10, t (465) = 2.06,p < .05, than in the United States (Figure 1).

Exploratory analyses indicated that attach-ment anxiety was more strongly related torelationship satisfaction in Hong Kong, β =−.11, t (465) = 2.34, p < .05, and Mexico,β = −.15, t (465) = 3.18, p < .01, than in theUnited States (Figure 2). Table 2 displays theregression coefficients for the analysis of rela-tionship satisfaction.

Perceptions of partner supportiveness

The analysis in which perceived social sup-port was the dependent variable revealed that

both avoidance, β = −.37, t (478) = 9.58,p < .001, and anxiety, β = −.18, t (478) =4.77, p < .001, were negatively related toperceived partner support and that perceivedsupport was higher in the United States thanin Hong Kong, β = −.35, t (478) = 8.27, p <

.001. Moreover, the negative relation betweenavoidance and perceived support was strongerin both Hong Kong, β = −.22, t (474) = 4.79,p < .001, and Mexico, β = −.09, t (474) =2.06, p < .05, than in the United States(Figure 3).

Exploratory tests involving anxiety revea-led that the negative relation between anxietyand perceived social support was stronger inMexico than in the United States, β = −.15,t (474) = 3.23, p < .01 (Figure 4). Table 3displays the regression coefficients for theanalysis of perceived partner supportiveness.

Investment in relationships

The analyses in which the investment scaleswere the dependent variables revealed the fol-lowing main effects. Relationship length waspositively related to investment in the currentrelationship, β = .11, t (468) = 2.62, p < .05,confirming that people felt more investedin longer relationships. A significant gendereffect indicated that women reported beingmore invested in their relationships than did

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

LO AVD HI AVD

US

HK

MEX

Rel

atio

nshi

p S

atis

fact

ion

Figure 1. United States–Hong Kong Comparison × Avoidance interaction and UnitedStates–Mexico Comparison × Avoidance interaction: Relationship satisfaction.Note. Regression lines are plotted for participants scoring 1 SD above and below the samplemean on avoidance. Scores on relationship satisfaction are presented in standardized units.US = United States; HK = Hong Kong; MEX = Mexico; AVD = avoidance.


-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

LO ANX HI ANX

US

HK

MEX

Rel

atio

nshi

p S

atis

fact

ion

Figure 2. United States–Hong Kong Comparison × Anxiety interaction and UnitedStates–Mexico Comparison × Anxiety interaction: Relationship satisfaction.Note. Regression lines are plotted for participants scoring 1 SD above and below the samplemean on anxiety. Scores on relationship satisfaction are presented in standardized units. US =United States; HK = Hong Kong; MEX = Mexico; ANX = anxiety.

men, β = .10, t (468) = 2.35, p < .05. Avoid-ance was negatively related to investment inrelationships, β = −.34, t (468) = 8.24, p <

.001. Investment was higher in the UnitedStates than in both Hong Kong, β = −.17,t (468) = 3.60, p < .001, and Mexico, β =−.31, t (468) = 5.57, p < .001.

Additional analyses revealed that the neg-ative link between avoidance and invest-ment was stronger in Hong Kong than inthe United States, β = −.11, t (464) = 2.19,p < .05, and was marginally stronger inMexico, β = −.10, t (464) = 1.94, p = .053(Figure 5). Table 4 displays the regressioncoefficients for the analysis of relationshipinvestment.

Relationship conflict

The analyses in which conflict was the depen-dent measure indicated that relationship lengthwas positively associated with the amountof relationship conflict, β = .20, t (477) =4.03, p < .001. Both avoidance, β = .26,t (477) = 6.03, p < .001, and anxiety, β =.26, t (477) = 6.14, p < .001, were also pos-itively associated with conflict.

Further analyses indicated that the asso-ciation between avoidance and conflict wasstronger in Hong Kong, β = .17, t (473) =3.08, p < .01 (Figure 6) than in the UnitedStates, but was only marginally stronger

in Mexico than in the United States, β =.10, t (473) = 1.81, p = .07. Analyses alsorevealed that even though anxiety predictedgreater relationship conflict in both the UnitedStates and Mexico, this association was stron-ger in Mexico, β = .15, t (473) = 2.74, p <

.05 (Figure 7). Table 5 displays the regressioncoefficients for the analysis of relationshipconflict.

Mean levels of avoidance and anxiety

Comparisons of means between the UnitedStates and Hong Kong and the United Statesand Mexico were conducted using the twodummy-coded variables described above. Bothwere entered simultaneously in a linear regres-sion analysis. The same control variableswere used in this analysis as in the anal-yses reported above. It revealed significantdifferences in avoidance between the UnitedStates and Hong Kong, β = .14, t (517) =2.97, p < .01, and between the United Statesand Mexico, β = .24, t (517) = 4.98, p <

.001. Attachment avoidance was higher inboth Hong Kong and Mexico than in theUnited States. Attachment anxiety was higherin Hong Kong than in the United States,β = .17, t (522) = 3.53, p < .001, but wasnot higher in Mexico than in the United States,β = .06, t (522) = 1.27.


Tab

le2.

Reg

ress

ion

coef

ficie

nts

for

rela

tion

ship

sati

sfac

tion

Mai

nef

fect

sIn

tera

ctio

nsw

ithav

oida

nce

Inte

ract

ions

with

anxi

ety

βt

pβ

tp

βt

p

Age

−0.0

20.

300.

77U

.S.–

HK

×A

vd−0

.23

4.85

0.00

1U

.S.–

HK

×A

nx−0

.11

2.34

0.02

Mon

ths

with

part

ner

−0.0

070.

170.

87U

.S.–

MX

×A

vd−0

.10

2.06

0.04

U.S

.–M

X×

Anx

−0.1

53.

180.

002

Sex

−0.0

30.

790.

43A

vd−0

.38

9.55

0.00

1A

nx−0

.25

6.34

0.00

1U

.S.–

HK

com

pari

son

−0.2

76.

100.

001

U.S

.–M

Xco

mpa

riso

n−0

.07

1.30

0.19

Not

e.U

nite

dSt

ates

(U.S

.)N

=21

4;H

ong

Kon

g(H

K)

N=

153;

Mex

ico

(MX

)N

=20

0;R

2fo

rth

ere

gres

sion

mod

elw

as.3

7.A

vd=

avoi

danc

e;A

nx=

anxi

ety.

Discussion

The major findings of this study indicate thathigher levels of avoidance are strongly asso-ciated with negative relationship outcomesin Hong Kong, Mexico, and the UnitedStates. This supports the view advanced byBowlby (1969) and other attachment theo-rists that attachment processes should oper-ate in a relatively consistent manner acrossmany, if not all, cultures. The results, how-ever, also provide evidence of the effects ofculture. Connections between avoidance andrelationship difficulties varied in magnitudeacross cultures. For example, greater attach-ment avoidance was more strongly linked toheightened conflict, less perceived support,less investment, and poorer relationship satis-faction for respondents in Hong Kong than inthe United States. In Mexico, greater avoid-ance was more strongly tied to lower rela-tionship satisfaction, less perceived partnersupport, and more relationship conflict thanit was the United States. These effects heldwhen participants’ age and relationship lengthwere statistically controlled. The slightly olderage and longer relationship length of partic-ipants in the collectivist cultures, therefore,cannot account for these disparities.

Several factors could contribute to thestronger linkage between avoidance and rela-tionship problems in more collectivistic cul-tures. In these cultures, the partners of moreavoidant people may find that their expec-tations of what constitutes an “appropriate”relationship are less completely met, creat-ing disappointment and frustration. Partners’dissatisfaction, in turn, may contribute to thedissatisfaction and other problems reported bythe more avoidant participants in this study.Parents and other family members may alsobelieve that the relationship is not as it shouldbe and may express their disapproval, creatingadditional pressures and problems for highlyavoidant persons and their partners.

Another important contributing factor maybe that pressures originating from relation-ship partners or other sources might forcehighly avoidant persons to engage in behav-iors with which they are uncomfortable. Theymay, for instance, feel pressure to engage


-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

LO AVD HI AVD

US

HK

MEX

Soc

ial S

uppo

rt

Figure 3. United States–Hong Kong Comparison × Avoidance interaction and UnitedStates–Mexico Comparison × Avoidance interaction: Perceived partner supportiveness.Note. Regression lines are plotted for participants scoring 1 SD above and below the samplemean on avoidance. Scores on social support are presented in standardized units. US = UnitedStates; HK = Hong Kong; MEX = Mexico; AVD = avoidance.

-0.35

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

LO ANX HI ANX

US

MEX

Soc

ial S

uppo

rt

Figure 4. United States–Mexico Comparison × Anxiety interaction: Perceived partner sup-portiveness.Note. Regression lines are plotted for participants scoring 1 SD above and below the samplemean on anxiety. Scores on social support are presented in standardized units. US = UnitedStates; MEX = Mexico; ANX = anxiety.

in levels or forms of self-disclosure thatmake them feel uncomfortable (Mikulincer &Naschon, 1991), or they may be required toperform care-taking behaviors they find dis-comforting or distressing (Wilson, Simpson,& Rholes, 2000). Bowlby (1988) conjecturedthat becoming “trapped” in a caretaker rolewas one of the greatest fears harbored bymany highly avoidant people. Living in a cul-ture that makes it difficult to avoid engage-ment in behaviors that are likely to activate

the attachment system should generate con-siderable stress and perhaps resentment inmore avoidant people, exacerbating problemsin their relationships.

No hypotheses about links between attach-ment anxiety and relationship satisfaction orthe other relationship variables were advanced.As suggested in the Introduction, anxietymight appear to fit well in collectivist societiesbecause of the emphasis that more anxiouspeople place on relationship closeness. This


Tab

le3.

Reg

ress

ion

coef

ficie

nts

for

perc

eive

dpa

rtne

rsu

ppor

tive

ness

Mai

nef

fect

sIn

tera

ctio

nsw

ithav

oida

nce

Inte

ract

ions

with

anxi

ety

βt

pβ

tp

βt

p

Age

−0.0

71.

290.

20U

.S.–

HK

×A

vd−0

.22

4.79

0.00

1U

.S.–

HK

×A

nx−0

.06

1.34

0.18

Mon

ths

with

part

ner

−0.0

20.

490.

62U

.S.–

MX

×A

vd−0

.09

2.06

0.04

U.S

.–M

X×

Anx

−0.1

53.

230.

001

Sex

0.07

1.86

0.06

Avd

−0.3

79.

580.

001

Anx

−0.1

84.

770.

001

U.S

.–H

Kco

mpa

riso

n−0

.35

8.27

0.00

1U

.S.–

MX

com

pari

son

−0.0

81.

440.

15

Not

e.U

nite

dSt

ates

(U.S

.)N

=21

4;H

ong

Kon

g(H

K)

N=

153;

Mex

ico

(MX

)N

=20

0;R

2fo

rth

ere

gres

sion

mod

elw

as.3

8.A

vd=

avoi

danc

e;A

nx=

anxi

ety.

could make for a close match between anxietyand collectivist cultures. More anxious indi-viduals, however, focus primarily on fulfill-ing their own needs for comfort and securityrather than those of their partners, and theirrelationships are characterized by consider-able conflict and disharmony (Rholes et al.,2008; Simpson et al., 1996). This aspect ofanxiety could generate a mismatch betweenthe behavioral tendencies of highly anxiouspeople and the collectivist cultures in whichthey reside.

The cultural differences in associationsbetween anxiety and relationship variablesthat emerged in this study were less consis-tent than those involving avoidance. In somecases, the connections between anxiety andthe relationship variables were stronger inHong Kong or Mexico than in the UnitedStates, but in some cases they were not.The association between anxiety and relation-ship satisfaction was, for example, strongerin Hong Kong and Mexico than in the UnitedStates. The association between anxiety andrelationship investment, however, was not sig-nificantly different between any of the cul-tures. Moreover, associations between anxietyand perceptions of partner support and levelsof relationship conflict were stronger in Mex-ico than in the United States, but were notstronger in Hong Kong than in the UnitedStates. Although highly anxious individualsyearn for close contact and a stronger sense oftogetherness, their lack of trust, their egoisticorientation, and their emotional reactiveness(Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver, 1996) may all con-spire to account for why more anxious peoplesometimes experience more relationship prob-lems in the collectivist cultures. Their focuson closeness, however, may partially explainwhy these findings are not highly consistentacross measures of relationships.

Consistent with past research, the presentstudy found that mean levels of attachmentavoidance and anxiety were higher in HongKong than in the United States. Avoidance,but not anxiety, was also higher in Mexicothan in the United States. Research hasshown that individuals in Japan (Sprecher,et al., 1994), Korea (You & Malley-Morrison,2000), and China (DiTommaso, Brannen,


-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

LO AVD HI AVD

US

HK

MEXInve

stm

ent

Figure 5. United States–Hong Kong Comparison × Avoidance interaction and UnitedStates–Mexico Comparison × Avoidance interaction: Investment Model Scales.Note. Regression lines are plotted for participants scoring 1 SD above and below the samplemean on avoidance. Scores on relationship investment are presented in standardized units. US= United States; HK = Hong Kong; MEX = Mexico; AVD = avoidance.

& Burgess, 2005) report greater attachmentavoidance than do individuals from NorthAmerica (the United States and Canada), anda recent worldwide study on adult attach-ment concluded that individuals in East Asiaare more likely to have preoccupied attach-ment styles (akin to anxious attachment inthe present study) than individuals in othercultural regions (Schmitt et al., 2004).

Attachment orientations are largely a prod-uct of experiences with attachment figuresacross infancy, childhood, and adolescence(Bowlby, 1969, 1973). Cultural differencesin parenting or other aspects of parent–childinteractions should, therefore, partially explaincultural differences in mean levels of avoid-ance and anxiety. Research showing that par-enting styles tend to be more authoritarianin some Eastern cultures (Keller, 2007), forexample, may explain some of the culturaldifferences we found. Cultural norms andexpectations that do not impact parentingpractices or parent–child relationships shouldhave much less bearing on the development ofattachment orientations. Prescriptive culturalnorms and expectations, which unlike attach-ment orientations are more socially acquired,should develop via different processes than doattachment orientations (e.g., through model-ing). Hence, it is not inconsistent that people

in collective cultures exhibit higher mean lev-els of attachment avoidance or anxiety thanthose in individualist cultures such as theUnited States, despite the fact that attachmentinsecurity might be more harmful to relation-ships in collectivist cultures.6

Finally, relationship length was associatedwith the amount of conflict and the amountof investment in relationships. Both conflictand investment scores were higher in relation-ships of greater duration. The associationbetween relationship length and investmentseems attributable to the fact that invest-ments accumulate over time, and the asso-ciation between length and conflict seemsto be attributable to the decline of an early“honeymoon” stage of relationships and theaccumulation of issues within relationshipsthat could cause conflict.

6. The combination of higher levels of avoidance in thetwo more collectivistic cultures and stronger norms forharmony and closeness may seem difficult to recon-cile. In doing so, it is important to distinguish betweendescriptive and proscriptive norms. The societal normsregarding harmony and closeness that we discuss areprescriptive norms that do not necessarily coincidewith descriptive norms. For this reason, descriptivenorms (e.g., higher levels of avoidance in more col-lectivistic cultures) are not necessarily at odds withprescriptive norms (e.g., expectations of greater har-mony and more closeness in relationships in morecollectivistic cultures).


Tab

le4.

Reg

ress

ion

coef

ficie

nts

for

Inve

stm

ent

Mod

elSc

ales

Mai

nef

fect

sIn

tera

ctio

nsw

ithav

oida

nce

Inte

ract

ions

with

anxi

ety

βt

pβ

tp

βt

p

Age

0.01

0.25

0.81

U.S

.–H

K×

Avd

−0.1

12.

190.

03U

.S.–

HK

×A

nx−0

.05

0.97

0.33

Mon

ths

with

part

ner

0.11

2.26

0.02

U.S

.–M

X×

Avd

−0.1

01.

940.

05U

.S.–

MX

×A

nx−0

.05

0.94

0.35

Sex

0.10

2.35

0.02

Avd

−0.3

48.

240.

001

Anx

0.04

0.90

0.37

U.S

.–H

Kco

mpa

riso

n−0

.17

3.60

0.00

1U

.S.–

MX

com

pari

son

−0.3

15.

570.

001

Not

e.U

nite

dSt

ates

(U.S

.)N

=21

4;H

ong

Kon

g(H

K)

N=

153;

Mex

ico

(MX

)N

=20

0;R

2fo

rth

ere

gres

sion

mod

elw

as.2

6.A

vd=

avoi

danc

e;A

nx=

anxi

ety.

To our knowledge, the present study isthe first to investigate the correlates of adultromantic attachment orientations across cul-tures. The findings are consistent with thecentral hypothesis that individual differencesin attachment orientations which are incon-gruent with the cultural environment exacer-bate problems within romantic relationships.A unique aspect of the study is that the sam-ple included two collectivist cultures. Themajority of past research on individualismand collectivism has compared individualsin Western societies with individuals fromConfucian-heritage cultures only (e.g., Japan,Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, and Korea; seeOyserman et al., 2002). Demonstrating com-parable effects in different types of collectivistcultures enhances the generalizability of thepresent findings.

The implications of this research must,however, be interpreted in view of certainlimitations. One limitation is that the presentstudy used a student sample in each culture.Although such samples are not representativeof the larger population of a culture, theyprovide a cost-effective way to conduct ini-tial cultural investigations. Indeed, most ofthe cross-cultural research published in thelast several years has used college studentparticipants. Students as a group may differfrom other members of their culture by beingfurther removed from traditional values andnorms given their ties to a university. Thismay create greater uniformity across culturesthan would be found with a more representa-tive sample. To the extent that students aremore removed from traditional values andnorms, student samples may actually underes-timate the extent of real cultural differences.

A second limitation is that only onemember of each couple was included inthis study. Information on the reactions ofthe partners of highly avoidant individu-als would have made the study more com-plete. A third limitation is that all of thedata are correlational, limiting our abilityto draw causal inferences. We assume thatrelationship problems are partially determinedby avoidance, although it is possible thatrelationship problems (e.g., lower satisfac-tion) might also generate greater avoidance.


-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

LO AVD HI AVD

US

HK

Rel

atio

nshi

p C

onfli

ct

Figure 6. United States–Hong Kong Comparison × Avoidance interaction: Relationshipconflict.Note. Regression lines are plotted for participants scoring 1 SD above and below the samplemean on avoidance. Scores on relationship conflict are presented in standardized units. US =United States; HK = Hong Kong; AVD = avoidance.

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

LO ANX HI ANX

US

MEX

Rel

atio

nshi

p C

onfli

ct

Figure 7. United States–Mexico Comparison × Anxiety interaction: Relationship conflict.Note. Regression lines are plotted for participants scoring 1 SD above and below the samplemean on anxiety. Scores on relationship conflict are presented in standardized units. US =United States; MEX = Mexico; ANX = anxiety.

This possibility cannot be addressed with thepresent data. However, experimental stud-ies have shown that priming attachment rep-resentations causally affects a number ofattachment-related variables (e.g., Mikulin-cer et al., 2005), and longitudinal studies(e.g., Rholes et al., 2001) have confirmedthat attachment orientations predict systematicchanges in relationship satisfaction and relatedfactors across time, suggesting that attachmentorientations may exert causal effects.

Another limitation is the absence of discri-minant validity analyses. Because the effectsof avoidance and anxiety were not testedagainst other personality traits (e.g., the BigFive), it is possible that the effects reportedcould be attributable to traits other thanattachment style.

A final concern involves possible culturalresponse sets. Specifically, individuals fromEastern cultures may be less likely to useextreme endpoints of Likert-type scales to not


Tab

le5.

Reg

ress

ion

coef

ficie

nts

for

rela

tion

ship

confl

ict

Mai

nef

fect

sIn

tera

ctio

nsw

ithav

oida

nce

Inte

ract

ions

with

anxi

ety

βt

pβ

tp

βt

p

Age

−0.0

71.

080.

28U

.S.–

HK

×A

vd0.

173.

080.

002

U.S

.–H

K×

Anx

0.03

0.51

0.61

Mon

ths

with

part

ner

0.20

4.03

0.00

1U

.S.–

MX

×A

vd0.

101.

810.

07U

.S.–

MX

×A

nx0.

152.

740.

006

Sex

−0.0

61.

340.

18A

vd0.

266.

030.

001

Anx

0.26

6.14

0.00

1U

.S.–

HK

com

pari

son

−0.0

1−0

.10

0.92

U.S

.–M

Xco

mpa

riso

n−0

.05

0.87

0.38

Not

e.U

nite

dSt

ates

(U.S

.)N

=21

4;H

ong

Kon

g(H

K)

N=

153;

Mex

ico

(MX

)N

=20

0;R

2fo

rth

ere

gres

sion

mod

elw

as.1

9.A

vd=

avoi

danc

e;A

nx=

anxi

ety.

“stick out” (e.g., Benet-Martınez, 2007; Chen,Lee, & Stevenson, 1995), even though empir-ical evidence regarding cultural response setsis mixed (Church, 2001; Grimm & Church,1999). Three findings from the current studyargue against this interpretation. First, thefindings indicate that the relation betweenavoidance and relationship outcomes is moreextreme in Hong Kong versus the UnitedStates. The cultural response set hypothesiswould suggest that Eastern participants shouldbe less likely to use extreme scale responses,resulting in attenuated variance and weakerassociations between avoidance and relation-ship functioning in Hong Kong. Second,centering the independent variables withineach culture, a technique that reduces cul-tural differences due to response sets (Benet-Martınez, 2007; van de Vijver & Leung,1997), does not change the findings. Finally,mean levels of avoidance and anxiety weremore extreme in Hong Kong than in theUnited States.

In conclusion, this study confirms theimportance of taking cultural fit into accountwhen studying the consequences of secureversus insecure attachment orientations onrelationships. Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)appears to have been correct in proposing thatbasic attachment processes and mechanismsare manifested similarly in different cultures.Culture, however, also appears to affect theway in which highly anxious and highlyavoidant attachment orientations “translate”into important relational outcomes.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions . Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., &Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment . Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Barrett, P. (1986). Factor comparison: An examinationof three methods. Personality and Individual Differ-ences , 7 , 327–340.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attach-ment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology , 61 , 226–244.

Benet-Martınez, V. (2007). Cross-cultural personalityresearch: Conceptual and methodological issues. InR. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. Krueger (Eds.),


Handbook of research methods in personality psychol-ogy . New York: Guilford.

Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psy-chology of the Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.),The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213–266).New York: Oxford University Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attach-ment . New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separa-tion: Anxiety and anger . New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Sadnessand depression. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applicationsof attachment theory . London: Routledge.

Bradford, S. A., Feeney, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2002).Links between attachment orientations and disposi-tional and diary-based measures of disclosure in dat-ing couples: A study of actor and partner effects.Personal Relationships , 9 , 491–506.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.).(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment:An integrative overview . New York: Guilford.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-culturalresearch. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1 ,185–216.

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A.(2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in roman-tic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 ,510–531.

Chen, C., Lee, S.-Y., & Stevenson, H. (1995). Responsestyle and cross-cultural comparison of rating scalesamong East Asian and North American students.Psychological Science, 6 , 170–175.

Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values andthe search for culture-free dimensions of culture.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 18 , 143–164.

Chirkov, V. I., Lynch, M., & Niwa, S. (2005). Applica-tion of the scenario questionnaire of horizontal andvertical individualism and collectivism to the assess-ment of cultural distance and cultural fit. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations , 29 , 469–490.

Church, A. T. (2001). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Personality , 69 ,979–1006.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis forthe behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Collins, N. L., Cooper, M. L., Albino, A., & Allard, L.(2002). Psychosocial vulnerability from adolescenceto adulthood: A prospective study of attachment styledifferences in relationship functioning and partnerchoice. Journal of Personality , 70 , 965–1008.

Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress incross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology , 26 , 673–697.

Davila, J., Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. (1998). Neg-ative affectivity as a mediator of the associationbetween adult attachment and marital satisfaction.Personal Relationships , 5 , 467–484.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1975). Psychology of the Mexican:Culture and personality . Austin: University of TexasPress.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1977). A Mexican psychology. Amer-ican Psychologist , 32 , 934–944.

Diaz-Loving, R. (2005). Emergence and contributionsof a Latin American indigenous social psychology.International Journal of Psychology , 40 , 213–227.

Diaz-Loving, R., & Draguns, J. (1999). Culture, meaningand personality in Mexico and in the United States.In Y. T. Lee, C. McCauley, & J. Draguns (Eds.),Personality and person perception across cultures(pp. 103–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DiTommaso, E., Brannen, C., & Burgess, M. (2005). Theuniversality of relationship characteristics: A cross-cultural comparison of different types of attachmentand loneliness in Canadian and visiting Chinese stu-dents. Social Behavior and Personality , 33 , 57–68.

Goodwin, R. (1999). Personal relationships across cul-tures . New York: Routledge.

Goodwin, R., & Tang, C. S. K. (1996). Chinese personalrelationships. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbookof Chinese psychology (pp. 294–308). Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.

Grimm, S. D., & Church, A. T. (1999). A cross-culturalstudy of response biases in personality measures.Journal of Research in Personality , 33 , 415–441.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationshipsatisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 50 ,93–98.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences . ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martınez,V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic construc-tivist approach to culture and cognition. AmericanPsychologist , 55 , 709–720.

Hui, H., & Villareal, M. J. (1989). Individualism–collectivism and psychological needs. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology , 20 , 310–323.

Hwang, K. K. (2000). Chinese relationalism: Theoreti-cal construction and methodological considerations.Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior , 30 ,155–178.

Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Chiu, C., Farsides, T.,Gelfand, M., Hong, Y., et al. (2005). Culture, essen-tialism, and agency: Are individuals universallybelieved to be more real entities than groups? Euro-pean Journal of Social Psychology , 35 , 147–169.

Keller, H. (2007). Cultures of infancy . New York: Erl-baum.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person–organization fit: An inte-grative review of its conceptualizations, measurement,and implications. Personnel Psychology , 49 , 1–49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson,E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit atwork: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organi-zation, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Per-sonnel Psychology , 58 , 281–342.


McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., &Bond, M. H. (1996). Evaluating replicability of fac-tors in the revised NEO Personality Inventory: Con-firmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ,552–566.

Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models andthe sense of trust: An exploration of interactiongoals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology , 74 , 1209–1224.

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relation-ship between adult attachment styles and emo-tional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. InJ. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachmenttheory and close relationships (pp. 143–165). NewYork: Guilford.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan,C. P. (2002). Attachment security in couple relation-ships: A systemic model and its implications for fam-ily dynamics. Family Process , 341 , 405–434.

Mikulincer, M., & Nachson, O. (1991). Attachment stylesand patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology , 61 , 321–331.

Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, I. (1995). Attachment stylesand repressive defensiveness: The accessibility andarchitecture of affective memories. Journal of Per-sonalityand Social Psychology , 68 , 917–925.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachmentbehavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psycho-dynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York: Academic Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment inadulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. NewYork: Guilford.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg,R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism:Boosting attachment security increases compassionand helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology , 84 , 817–839.

Oguri, M., & Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). The influenceof self construals and communication styles onsojourners’ psychological and sociocultural adjust-ment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations ,26 , 577–593.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991).People and organizational culture: A profile compar-ison approach to assessing person–organization fit.Academy of Management Journal , 34 , 487–516.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002).Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evalua-tion of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.Psychological Bulletin, 128 , 3–72.

Parkes, L. P., Bochner, S., & Schneider, S. K. (2001).Person–organization fit across cultures: An empiri-cal investigation of individualism and collectivism.Applied Psychology: An International Review , 50 ,81–108.

Pimentel, E. E. (2000). Just how do I love thee? Maritalrelations in urban China. Journal of Marriage andFamily , 62 , 32–47.

Pistole, M. C. (2003). Understanding attachment: Beliefsabout conflict. Journal of Counseling and Develop-ment , 81 , 318–328.

Rapson, E., & Hatfield, R. L. (2005). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives . Lanham, MD: University Press.

Rholes, W. S., Paetzold, R. L., & Friedman, M. (2008).Ties that bind: Linking personality to interpersonalbehavior through the study of adult attachment styleand relationship satisfaction. In F. Rhodewaldt (Ed.),Personality and social interaction (pp. 117–148).Washington, DC: Psychology Press.

Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Grich, J.(2001). Adult attachment and the transition to parent-hood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,81 , 421–435.

Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Orina, M. M. (1999).Attachment and anger in an anxiety- provoking situ-ation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,76 , 940–957.

Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Tran, S., Martin, M., &Friedman, M. (2007). Attachment and informationseeking in romantic relationships. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 33 , 422–438.

Rothbaum, F., Pott, M., Azuma, H., Miyake, K., &Weisz, J. (2000). The development of close relation-ships in Japan and the United States: Paths of symbi-otic harmony and generative tension. Child Develop-ment , 71 , 1121–1142.

Rothbaum, F., & Tsang, B. (1998). Love songs in theUnited States and China. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology , 29 , 306–319.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction inromantic associations: A test of the investmentmodel. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ,16 , 172–186.

Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sara-son, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: TheSocial Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology , 44 , 127–139.

Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J. R.,Ault, L., Austers, I., et al. (2004). Patterns and uni-versals of adult romantic attachment across 62 culturalregions: Are models of self and of other pancul-tural constructs? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy , 35 , 367–402.

Shkodriani, G. M., & Gibbons, J. L. (1995). Individual-ism and collectivism among university students inMexico and the United States. Journal of Social Psy-chology , 135 , 765–772.

Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles onromantic relationships. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology , 59 , 971–980.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992).Support seeking and support giving within couplesin an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attach-ment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology , 62 , 434–446.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996).Conflict in close relationships: An attachment


perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology , 71 , 899–914.

Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova,E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Love: American style,Russian style and Japanese style. Personal Relation-ships , 1 , 349–369.

Tidwell, M. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996).Attachment, attractiveness, and social interaction: Adiary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology , 71 , 729–745.

Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K. S. (1998).Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism andindividualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology ,29 , 275–289.

van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods anddata analysis for cross-cultural research. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Ward, C., & Chang, W. C. (1997). “Cultural fit”: A newperspective on personality and sojourner adjustment.International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 21 ,525–533.

Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value dis-crepancies and cultural identity on psychological andsociocultural adjustment of sojourners. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations , 15 , 209–225.

Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989).Collectivism–individualism in everyday social life:The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology , 57 , 79–86.

Wilson, C. L., Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2000).Attachment orientation and support giving. Posterpresented at the Midwestern Psychological Associ-ation annual conference, Chicago.

You, H. S., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2000). Young adultattachment styles and intimate relationships withclose friends: A cross-cultural study of Koreansand Caucasian Americans. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology , 31 , 528–534.

Yum, J. (1988). The impact of Confucianism oninterpersonal relationships and communicative pat-terns in East Asia. Communication Monographs , 55 ,374–388.

Attachment avoidance and the cultural ﬁt hypothesis: A...

Documents

Transcript of Attachment avoidance and the cultural ﬁt hypothesis: A...