Integrating culture and attachment.

From this perspective, Rothbaum and colleagues' (2000) claim that the universality of the sensitivity-security link is questionable because of evidence of fundamental cultural differences in parental sensitivity is not relevant. The issue is not about cultural differences in sensitive behavior. Differences in how sensitivity is displayed in each context are expected. The key issue is whether sensitivity and security are related. Furthermore , other than a conceptual discussion of what constitutes caregiving in Japan and the United States, they did not offer empirical evidence that contradicts the sensitivity security hypothesis or that tests the hypothesis in Japan using their culturally specific definition of caregiving. It is important to note that Rothbaum et al. (2000) again overlooked evidence from non-Western cultures. Posada et al. in Japan reported that the constructs of sensitivity and security are significantly related (although previously Nakagawa, Lamb, & Miyake, 1992, reported no significant associations between the constructs in Japan). Further, when focusing on maternal preferences, Rothbaum et al. ignored Posada and colleagues' (1995) findings that when maternal preferences about interactions, physical proximity, and contact were compared, no differences were found between Japanese and U.S. mothers. If anything , U.S. mothers had higher scores in preference for physical contact and having emotionally close and positive interactions with their infants than did Japanese mothers. Although more research is needed, the few existing studies support the universality of the link. What do children learn from participating in attachment relationships? Researchers have specified developmental domains where security would be relevant. The most direct hypotheses suggest that experience in attachment relationships has implications in the organization of behavior, cognition, and emotion in close relationships; self-concept; and parenting. Few current researchers , if any, would claim that competence is a direct consequence of security. Attachment security is but one of a number of influences on socialization outcomes. An important task in attachment research is to elucidate the role that security plays in effecting socialization. The difficulty with Rothbaum and col-leagues' (2000) discussion of the security-competence hypothesis is that rather than presenting an evaluation of cross-cultural research on the link between security and competence, their focus is on the cultural specificity of the construct of competence alone. These are different issues. They argue that what is considered competent varies by culture. This may well be so, yet the issue is not whether there are cultural differences in definitions of competence but whether security is …