Patterns and Universals of Adult Romantic Attachment Across 62 Cultural Regions Are Models of Self and of Other Pancultural Constructs

TLDR: In the International Sexuality Description Project, a total of 17,804 participants from 62 cultural regions completed the RelationshipQuestionnaire (RQ), a self-report measure of adult romantic attachment as discussed by the authors.

Abstract: As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, a total of 17,804 participants from 62 cultural regions completedthe RelationshipQuestionnaire(RQ), a self-reportmeasure of adult romanticattachment. Correlational analyses within each culture suggested that the Model of Self and the Model of Other scales of the RQ were psychometrically valid within most cultures. Contrary to expectations, the Model of Self and Model of Other dimensions of the RQ did not underlie the four-category model of attachment in the same way across all cultures. Analyses of specific attachment styles revealed that secure romantic attachment was normative in 79% of cultures and that preoccupied romantic attachment was particularly prevalent in East Asian cultures. Finally, the romantic attachment profiles of individual nations were correlated with sociocultural indicators in ways that supported evolutionary theories of romantic attachment and basic human mating strategies.

Figures

Figure 1: Model of Self and Model of Other Levels Across the 10 World Regions of the International Sexuality Description Project (N = 17,804) NOTE: SE = southeast.

TABLE 3 Intercorrelations of Romantic Attachment Scores (Controlling for Age and Gender) Across the 62 Cultural Regions of the International Sexuality Description Project

TABLE 3 Intercorrelations of Romantic Attachment Scores (Controlling for Age and Gender) Across the 62 Cultural Regions of the International Sexuality Description Project

TABLE 2 Models of Self and Other Related to Self-Esteem and Agreeableness (Controlling for Age and Gender) Across the 62 Cultural Regions of the International Sexuality Description Project

TABLE 2 Models of Self and Other Related to Self-Esteem and Agreeableness (Controlling for Age and Gender) Across the 62 Cultural Regions of the International Sexuality Description Project

Full text

10.1177/0022022104266105JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGYSchmitt et al. / ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT ACROSS 62 CULTURES
PATTERNS AND UNIVERSALS OF ADULT ROMANTIC
ATTACHMENT ACROSS 62 CULTURAL REGIONS
Are Models of Self and of Other Pancultural Constructs?
367
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 35 No. 4, July 2004 367-402
DOI: 10.1177/0022022104266105
© 2004 Sage Publications
DAVID P. SCHMITT
Bradley University
LIDIA ALCALAY
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
MELISSA ALLENSWORTH
Bradley University
JÜRI ALLIK
University of Tartu, Estonia
LARA AULT
University of Louisville
IVARS AUSTERS
University of Latvia, Latvia
KEVIN L. BENNETT
University of New Mexico
GABRIEL BIANCHI
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic
FREDRICK BOHOLST
University of San Carlos, Philippines
MARY ANN BORG CUNEN
University of Malta, Malta
JOHAN BRAECKMAN
Ghent University, Belgium
EDWIN G. BRAINERD JR.
Clemson University
LEO GERARD A. CARAL
University of San Carlos, Philippines
GABRIELLE CARON
Université of Laval, Canada
MARIA MARTINA CASULLO
University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM
University of Louisville
IKUO DAIBO
Osaka University, Japan
CHARLOTTE DE BACKER
Ghent University, Belgium
EROS DE SOUZA
Illinois State University
ROLANDO DIAZ-LOVING
National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
GLÁUCIA DINIZ
University of Brasilia, Brazil
KEVIN DURKIN
The University of Western Australia, Australia
MARCELA ECHEGARAY
University of Lima, Peru
EKIN EREMSOY
Bogaziçi Üniversitesi, Turkey
HARALD A. EULER
University of Kassel, Germany
RUTH FALZON
University of Malta, Malta
MARYANNE L. FISHER
York University, Canada
DOLORES FOLEY
University of Queensland, Australia
ROBERT FOWLER
Bradley University
DOUGLAS P. FRY
Åbo Akademi University, Finland
SIRPA FRY
Åbo Akademi University, Finland
M. ARIF GHAYUR
Al-Akhawayn University, Morocco
VIJAI N. GIRI
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
DEBRA L. GOLDEN
University of Hawaii, Manoa
KARL GRAMMER
Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institute for Urban Ethology, Aus
-
tria
LIRIA GRIMALDI
University of Catania, Italy
JAMIN HALBERSTADT
University of Otago, New Zealand
SHAMSUL HAQUE
University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
DORA HERRERA
University of Lima, Peru

368 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
JANINE HERTEL
Technische Universität Chemnitz, Germany
AMANDA HITCHELL
Bradley University
HEATHER HOFFMANN
Knox College
DANICA HOOPER
University of Queensland, Australia
ZUZANA HRADILEKOVA
Comenius University, Slovak Republic
JASNA HUDEK-KENE-EVI
University of Rijeka, Croatia
ALLEN HUFFCUTT
Bradley University
JAS JAAFAR
University of Malaya, Malaysia
MARGARITA JANKAUSKAITE
Vilnius University, Lithuania
HEIDI KABANGU-STAHEL
Centre d’Enseignement les Gazelles, Democratic Re-
public of the Congo
IGOR KARDUM
University of Rijeka, Croatia
BRIGITTE KHOURY
American University of Beirut, Lebanon
HAYRRAN KWON
Kwangju Health College, South Korea
KAIA LAIDRA
University of Tartu, Estonia
ANTON-RUPERT LAIREITER
Institute of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Austria
DUSTIN LAKERVELD
University of Utrecht, the Netherlands
ADA LAMPERT
The Ruppin Institute, Israel
MARYANNE LAURI
University of Malta, Malta
MARGUERITE LAVALLÉE
Université of Laval, Canada
SUK-JAE LEE
National Computerization Agency, South Korea
LUK CHUNG LEUNG
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
KENNETH D. LOCKE
University of Idaho
VANCE LOCKE
The University of Western Australia, Australia
IVAN LUKSIK
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic
ISHMAEL MAGAISA
University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe
DALIA MARCINKEVICIENE
Vilnius Univeristy, Lithuania
ANDRÉ MATA
University of Lisbon, Portugal
RUI MATA
University of Lisbon, Portugal
BARRY MCCARTHY
University of Central Lancashire, England
MICHAEL E. MILLS
Loyola Marymount University
NHLANHLA J. MKHIZE
University of Natal, South Africa
JOÃO MOREIRA
University of Lisbon, Portugal
SÉRGIO MOREIRA
University of Lisbon, Portugal
MIGUEL MOYA
University of Granada, Spain
M. MUNYAE
University of Botswana, Botswana
PATRICIA NOLLER
University of Queensland, Australia
HMOUD OLIMAT
University of Jordan, Jordan
ADRIAN OPRE
Babes Bolyai University, Romania
ALEXIA PANAYIOTOU
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
NEBOJSA PETROVIC
University of Belgrade, Serbia
KAROLIEN POELS
Ghent University, Belgium
MIROSLAV POPPER
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic
MARIA POULIMENOU
KPMG Kyriacou Counsultants SA, Greece
VOLODYMYR P’YATOKHA
Volyn Regional Hospital, Ukraine
MICHEL RAYMOND
Université de Montpellier II, France
ULF-DIETRICH REIPS
Universität Zürich, Switzerland

Schmitt et al. / ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT ACROSS 62 CULTURES 369
SUSAN E. RENEAU
University of Alabama
SOFIA RIVERA-ARAGON
National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
WADE C. ROWATT
Baylor University
WILLIBALD RUCH
Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland
VELKO S. RUS
Univeristy of Ljubljana, Slovenia
MARILYN P. SAFIR
University of Haifa, Israel
SONIA SALAS
Universidad de La Serena, Chile
FABIO SAMBATARO
University of Catania, Italy
KENNETH N. SANDNABBA
Åbo Akademi University, Finland
RACHEL SCHLEETER
Bradley University
MARION K. SCHULMEYER
Universidad Privada de Santa Cruz de la Sierra,
Bolivia
ASTRID SCHÜTZ
Technische Universität Chemnitz, Germany
TULLIO SCRIMALI
University of Catania, Italy
TODD K. SHACKELFORD
Florida Atlantic University
MITHILA B. SHARAN
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
PHILLIP R. SHAVER
University of California, Davis
FRANCIS SICHONA
University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
FRANCO SIMONETTI
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
TILAHUN SINESHAW
Ramapo College of New Jersey
R. SOOKDEW
University of Natal, South Africa
TOM SPEELMAN
Ghent University, Belgium
SPYROS SPYROU
Cyprus College, Cyprus
H. CANAN SÜMER
NEBI SÜMER
Middle East Technical University, Turkey
MARIANNA SUPEKOVA
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic
TOMASZ SZLENDAK
Nicholas Copernicus University, Poland
ROBIN TAYLOR
University of the South Pacific, Fiji
BERT TIMMERMANS
Vrije Universiteit, Belgium
WILLIAM TOOKE
State University of New York, Plattsburgh
IOANNIS TSAOUSIS
University of the Aegean, Greece
F.S.K. TUNGARAZA
University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
ASHLEY TURNER
Bradley University
GRIET VANDERMASSEN
Ghent University, Belgium
TIM VANHOOMISSEN
FRANK VAN OVERWALLE
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
INE VANWESENBEECK
The Netherlands Institute of Social Sexological Re-
search, the Netherlands
PAUL L. VASEY
University of Lethbridge, Canada
JOÃO VERISSIMO
University of Lisbon, Portugal
MARTIN VORACEK
University of Vienna Medical School, Austria
WENDY W.N. WAN
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
TA-WEI WANG
Yuan Ze University, Taiwan
PETER WEISS
Charles University, Czech Republic
ANDIK WIJAYA
Couple Clinic Indonesia, Surabaya, Indonesia
LIESBETH WOERTMAN
Utrecht University, the Netherlands
GAHYUN YOUN
Chonnam National University, South Korea
AGATA ZUPANÈIÈ
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, a total of 17,804 participants from 62 cultural
regionscompletedthe Relationship Questionnaire (RQ), a self-report measure of adult romantic attachment.
Correlational analyses within each culture suggested that the Model of Self and the Model of Other scales of
the RQ were psychometrically valid within most cultures. Contrary to expectations, the Model of Self and
Model of Other dimensions of the RQ did not underlie the four-category model of attachment in the same
way across all cultures. Analyses of specific attachment styles revealed that secure romantic attachment was
normative in 79% of cultures and that preoccupied romantic attachment was particularly prevalent in East
Asian cultures. Finally, the romantic attachment profiles of individual nations were correlated with
sociocultural indicators in ways that supported evolutionary theories of romantic attachment and basic
human mating strategies.
Keywords: romantic attachment; culture; internal working models; human mating strategies
In this article, we report findings from the International Sexuality Description Project
(ISDP), a research collaboration involving more than 100 social, behavioral, and biological
scientists. The ISDP was conducted with the express aim of obtaining direct assessments of
sexuality from a wide range of cultures. As part of the project, more than 17,000 participants
from 62 cultural regions completed a brief self-report measure of adult romantic attachment
called the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Five specific
objectivesmotivated our investigation into adult romantic attachment and its variation across
cultures.
The firstobjective was to determine whether the Model of Self and Model of Other attach-
ment scales of the Relationship Questionnaire were validwithin all cultures of the ISDP. The
second objective was to evaluate whether these two basic dimensions underlie the four cate-
gorical styles of romantic attachment—secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful (see
Bartholomew, 1990)—in the same way across all ISDP cultures. The third objective was to
determine whether the secure form of romantic attachment is normative across all ISDP
cultures (van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). The fourth objective was to investigate whether
East Asians are particularly prone to preoccupied romantic attachment (Soon & Malley-
Morrison, 2000). Our fifth and final objective was to test various evolutionary theories of
romantic attachment and basic human mating strategies (Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991;
Chisholm, 1996). Because research on adult romantic attachment has been greatly influ
-
enced by developmental theories of attachment (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Simpson &
Rholes, 1998), we begin with a brief review of the developmental origins of attachment.
DEVELOPMENTAL ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT
According to Bowlby’s (1969/1982) ethological theory of attachment, humans possess a
behavioral-motivational system that emerges in infancy and is designed to protect children
as they pass through several discrete phases of development (Marvin & Britner, 1999). This
attachment system is thought to be shared with other primates (Suomi, 1995), having
evolved as an adaptive mechanism for monitoring the physical proximity and availability of
370 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
AUTHORS’NOTE: The authors would like to thank Del Paulhus(Canada-English),Susan Sprecher (USA-Midwest), Glenn D. Wil
-
son (England), Qazi Rahman (England), Alois Angleitner (Germany), Angelika Hofhansl (Austria), Tamio Imagawa (Japan),
Minoru Wada (Japan), Junichi Taniguchi (Japan), and Yuji Kanemasa (Japan) for helping with data collection and contributing sig
-
nificantly to the samples used in this study. Except for the first author, all authors contributed equally to this article and were listed
alphabetically. Correspondence should be sent to DavidP. Schmitt, 105 Comstock Hall, Department of Psychology, Bradley Univer
-
sity, Peoria IL 61625; e-mail: dps@bradley.edu.

protective attachment figures (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). A central feature of this
theory is that all children are presumed to pass through the same set of developmental phases
and to possess the same highly evolved attachment system (van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). It
also is generally assumed that successful navigation through the universal stages of attach
-
ment normatively provides children with a secure emotional base, a base from which chil
-
dren can competently lead the rest of their relational lives (Bowlby, 1988; Hazan & Zeifman,
1999).
Early attachment experiences provide a secure emotional base primarily by impacting
children’s fundamental feelings of confidence, worthiness, and interpersonal trust (Bowlby,
1973, 1980). Childhood experiences that include responsive, supportive, and consistent
caregiving are thought to leave children with an abiding sense of high self-worth and a last
-
ing feeling of comfort about depending on others. These thoughts and feelings eventually
crystallize into basic internal working models or cognitive-emotional attitudes that securely
assert that the self is valuable and worthy of love (i.e., children develop a positive model-of-
self attitude) and that others are valuable and worthy of trust (i.e., children develop a positive
model-of-other attitude). Unresponsive, abusive, or inconsistent caregiving experiences, in
contrast, are thought to leave children with negative or dysfunctional internal working mod
-
els. Dysfunctional models can consist of a negative model of other (via distrust and low valu-
ing of the parent), a negative model of self (via low self-esteem and sensitivity to rejection),
or negative models of both the self and others (Bartholomew, 1990). Eventually, these inter-
nal working models can unknowingly become stable parts of the child’s core personality:
“Once built, evidence suggests, these models of a parent and self in interaction tend to persist
and are so taken for granted that they come to operate at an unconscious level” (Bowlby,
1988, p. 130).
EVIDENCE OF ATTACHMENT IN CHILDHOOD AND BEYOND
Beginning with the work of Ainsworth and her colleagues (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978), developmental psychologists have consistently found that early childhood
attachment experiences are closely connected with children’s feelings toward themselves
and others. In support of Bowlby’s original theory (1969/1982), children from supportive
caregiving environments have higher self-esteem and are more trusting, kind, and generally
more prosocial than other children (see Ainsworth, 1991). Although this research often por
-
trays humans as having discrete attachment styles in which one is either securely or inse
-
curely attached, attachment orientations also can be understood in terms of variation along
the fundamental dimensions of Model of Self and Model of Other (Brennan, Clark, &
Shaver, 1998; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a). In children, individual differences in Model
of Self and Model of Other have been linked to a wide range of emotional and social out
-
comes (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999), and attachment orientations rooted in positive
Models of Self and Other are thought to provide the healthiest foundation for psychological
functioning (Dozier, Stovall, & Albus, 1999; Greenberg, 1999).
Evidence also suggests that internal working Models of Self and Other tend to persist over
time, affecting our ability to relate to others in close personal relationships well into adult
-
hood (Simpson & Rholes, 1998; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albertstein, 2000).
Attachment style categories, and the underlying internal working Models of Self and Other,
seem to have an enduring influence on many social interactions (Collins & Read, 1994;
Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997), including parent-child relations (George & Solomon,
1999), peer relationships and friendships (Allen & Land, 1999; Feeney, Noller, & Patty,
Schmitt et al. / ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT ACROSS 62 CULTURES 371

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions are models of self and of other pancultural constructs?" ?

Nonetheless, the authors believe the use of the Relationship Questionnaire renders their findings as tentative, pending future crosscultural studies using multi-item measures of adult romantic attachment ( e. g., Brennan et al., 1998 ). Future research using representative sampling and more complex statistical procedures ( e. g., latent variable modeling ) is a logical next step for determining whether the national variations in romantic attachment uncovered here penetrate into all layers of national cultures ( e. g., see Eid, Langeheine, & Deiner, 2003 ). Nevertheless, future research in which multiple age and economic groups are assessed across multiple cultures may uncover significant interactions between demographic features and culture that were not discernable in the current investigation. Third, the nonprofessional translation of their measures into 30 languages leaves open the possibility that some translations were poor, and in some cases, the translations may have failed to maintain the original meaning of their key romantic attachment concepts. 

Q2. What was the second avenue for evaluating the validity of Model of Other scale?

The second avenue for evaluating the validity of Model of Other scale was to relate it to a measure that is unassociated with positive views of others, such as self-esteem. 

Q3. What is the method for detecting and clarifying romantic attachment patterns across cultures?

If meaningful patterns and universals of romantic attachment do exist across cultures, the best method for detecting and clarifying these patterns would be to conduct a large study such as the ISDP in which primary data are simultaneously collected from all cultures using identical romantic attachment measures. 

Q4. What was the second avenue for evaluating the construct validity of the Model of Self scale?

The second avenue for evaluating the construct validity of the Model of Self scale was to relate the scale to a measure that should be relatively unassociated with positive views of the self. 

Q5. What factors may play a role in these deviations from secure attachment?

It seems possible that shared religious, political, or economic factors play a role in these patterned deviations from secure attachment. 

Q6. What is the effect of stress on the romantic attachment styles of people?

Those people who are socially exposed to high levels of stress, including more prolific rates of reproduction, tend to develop insecure romantic attachment styles (Chisholm, 1996). 

Q7. What is the next step for determining whether the national variations in romantic attachment penetrate into all layers?

Future research using representative sampling and more complex statistical procedures (e.g., latent variable modeling) is a logical next step for determining whether the national variations in romantic attachment uncovered here penetrate into all layers of national cultures (e.g., see Eid, Langeheine, & Deiner, 2003). 

Q8. How many cultures were negatively correlated with secure and fearful attachment?

Secure and fearful forms of romantic attachment were negatively correlated, as predicted, in 63% of cultures, but preoccupied and dismissing attachment were negatively correlated in only 25% of cultures. 

Q9. What is the relationship between insecure romantic attachment and long-term mating?

those people who are socially exposed to high levels of stress—especially insensitive and inconsistent parenting, harsh physical environments, and economic hardship—should tend to develop insecure romantic attachment styles associated with short-term mating (Schmitt, 2003). 

Q10. What regions were positively correlated with the dimensions of self and other?

In 10 cultural regions (Canada-English, USA–Midwest, USA–West, USA–Hawaii, Northern Ireland, Germany, Serbia, Turkey, Israel, and Australia), the dimensions were positively correlated; in 2 cultural regions (Zimbabwe and the South Korea), the two dimensions were negatively correlated.