Sex differences in romantic attachment among Chinese: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Although several studies support evolutionary perspectives on sex differences in romantic attachment, these sex differences in East Asia remain controversial. To estimate the effect size of sex differences in romantic attachment among Chinese adults, a meta-analysis of sex differences was conducted in the present study. This meta-analysis was based on 111 samples using the Chinese version of the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale and its revised version. The findings suggest that the effect size of sex differences in romantic attachment among Chinese adults is relatively small. Overall, females demonstrated higher anxiety and avoidance than males, with substantial between-study heterogeneity. Sex differences were largest in community samples, with higher avoidance and lower anxiety in males. There were smaller sex differences in college student samples, with higher anxiety and avoidance in females. The degree of sex differences also varied across geographical regions, with high-stress and high-fertility reproductive environments showing smaller sex differences in general and larger sex differences in extreme conditions. Sex differences in anxiety increased linearly with age, whereas those in avoidance remained unchanged. The results support evolutionary perspectives of sex differences in romantic attachment, which assume that the average sex differences in romantic attachment styles should be relatively small in most populations, and many possible factors might moderate such differences. The heterogeneity and limitations of the current findings and directions for future research on sex differences in romantic attachment are discussed.

Different effects of anxiety and avoidance dimensions of attachment on interpersonal trust: A multilevel meta-analysis

“…Therefore, the influence of culture should also be considered in the study of attachment and interpersonal relationships (Erdman & Ng, 2015). For example, counter to findings from Western samples (Del Giudice, 2011), Li et al (2019) found that women reported higher levels of both avoidance and anxiety than men among Chinese people. Although such differences are not the same in all cultures, culture may be an indicator of the degree of differentiation (Schmitt et al, 2010).…”

Sex differences in attachment styles

“…As ecological stress becomes more severe, avoidance increases (and/or anxiety decreases) in both sexes but more steeply in women, thus narrowing the gap [13,14]. The main exception to this pattern is China, where sex differences are very small and appear to be virtually absent in college students [1,15,16].…”

Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions: What is the Role of Childhood Trauma and Attachment?

“…Similarly, there are studies showing that both men (Wongpakaran et al, 2012) and women (Del Giudice, 2011;Li et al, 2019;Weber et al, 2022) have higher scores in the anxiety dimension. On the other hand, it was determined that there were no differences between men and women in their secure or fearful ratings (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), anxiety dimension (Barry et al, 2015;Shu et al, 2017), avoidance dimension (Shu et al, 2017).…”

“…When the attachment literature was examined in terms of genders, it was seen that there were also different results. For example, in some studies men (Barry et al, 2015;Del Giudice, 2011;Weber et al, 2022;Wongpakaran et al, 2012) scored higher, while women (Li et al, 2019) scored higher in some other studies.…”

“…In addition to these studies, there were other studies with results that were not consistent with the results of the present study. These studies showed that males had higher scores on the avoidance dimension than females (Barry et al, 2015;Del Giudice, 2011;Li et al, 2019;Weber et al, 2022;Wongpakaran et al, 2012) or females had higher scores on the avoidance dimension (Li et al, 2019), males scored significantly lower than women on the anxiety dimension of attachment (Del Giudice, 2011;Li et al, 2019;Weber et al, 2022), or that males scored higher than females on the same dimension (Wongpakaran et al, 2012).…”