Research on attachment has exploded in the West and, we submit, it is reflective of the indigenous value of independence, and in turn, it mirrors a spirituality that is highly subjective and personal. Since the early work of Bowlby (1969/1982; 1973, 1979) and Ainsworth and Bowlby (1991), thousands of studies have been conducted on the styles of attachment of the infant to her caregiver: secure, insecure, avoidant, or disorganized. Moreover, a strong connection has been made between secure attachment styles and healthy peer relationships, parenting approaches, adolescent self-confidence (Sroufe, 2005), adult romantic attachment, and adult spirituality (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2013). Those with secure attachment styles reported more positive relationships with a personal God. However, the attachment research has been severely criticized as ideological for its Western biases (Rothbaum & Morelli, 2005; Rothbaum, Morelli, & Rusk, 2011). Might attachment be viewed differently in more relationally dense communities and societies? Consistent with the ideology of more individualistic cultures, Ainsworth assumed a secure attachment was the foundation for independence (Takahashi, 1990). But from an international perspective, there are reports from non-Western mothers who encourage dependence for the sake of socializing the emerging child into a more interdependent way of relating in a communal culture (True, Pisani, & Oumar, 2001). From the perspective of a cultural psychology of religion we ask whether religion and spirituality might be construed in more social and communal terms in more relationally saturated cultures/communities.
