In a groundbreaking cross-cultural investigation, researchers have uncovered complex dynamics between maternal parenting styles and child attachment security, revealing how cultural context and socio-political history shape the intricate relationship between maternal warmth, psychological control, and children’s emotional bonds with their caregivers. This new study, spanning diverse societies including collectivistic Turkey, post-communist Poland and Belarus, as well as highly individualistic Norway and the Netherlands, challenges conventional understandings of parenting and developmental psychology, emphasizing the nuance required when interpreting parental behaviors across different cultural landscapes.
At the heart of this investigation lies a paradox: while maternal warmth is generally associated with secure attachment, its interaction with psychological control—a parenting style characterized by manipulative and intrusive behaviors—varies significantly by culture. The researchers introduced two distinct models to elucidate these cultural variations: the “ambiguity model” and the “buffering model.” The ambiguity model posits that in individualistic countries with longstanding democratic traditions, such as Norway, the simultaneous presence of maternal warmth and psychological control creates conflicting signals for children, thereby exacerbating their attachment anxiety. Conversely, the buffering model, observed primarily in Poland and Belarus, suggests that in societies with recent democratic transitions and historically authoritarian parenting, maternal warmth can mitigate some of the harmful impacts of psychological control on children’s attachment outcomes.
The ambiguity model finds support in the Norwegian sample, where maternal warmth unexpectedly intensified the negative effects of psychological control on children’s attachment anxiety. This phenomenon suggests a cultural intolerance towards controlling parenting tactics despite the overt expression of warmth, pointing to a socio-cultural context that prioritizes parental acceptance while rejecting coercion. In this democratic and highly individualistic environment, children appear to perceive warmth emanating from psychologically controlling mothers not purely as affection, but as part of an intrusive or manipulative parenting strategy. Such dual signals may disrupt the child’s attachment system, heightening insecurity and anxiety.
In striking contrast, findings from Poland and Belarus reveal a buffering effect of maternal warmth against psychological control. These post-communist nations, characterized by sudden socio-political change and control-oriented parental norms, offer a cultural backdrop where displays of warmth are less frequent but highly salient. Children in these societies seem to reinterpret warmth in the context of psychological control, enabling them to reconcile the mixed parenting tactics they experience. The buffering effect, therefore, may stem from a reflective understanding—rooted in cultural heritage—where warmth is seen as a meaningful, supportive gesture that softens the potentially damaging impact of control-based parenting.
These divergent models not only underscore the cultural specificity of parenting effects but also reveal an evolutionary trajectory in societal norms regarding child-rearing. In Poland and Belarus, the legacy of authoritarian parenting remains present in adulthood recollections, but is reframed through the lens of maternal warmth, fostering a more nuanced internal working model of attachment. Norwegian participants, by contrast, reflect a parenting paradigm where warmth is normative and psychological control is less socially sanctioned, resulting in less cognitive dissonance but greater sensitivity to controlling behaviors.
However, the study’s intricate findings are further complicated by developmental considerations. Subsequent analysis of current child-parent interactions in middle childhood painted a different picture, indicating that younger children’s perceptions of warmth and control do not neatly align with the ambiguity-buffering dichotomy predicted by culture alone. Surprisingly, Polish and Turkish children’s interpretations of maternal warmth aligned more closely with the ambiguity model, while Dutch children’s experiences resonated with the buffering model. This inversion suggests that developmental factors—specifically children’s cognitive capacity for reflection and interpretation—modulate their understanding of parenting strategies.
Developmental psychology offers a compelling explanation: middle childhood may represent a stage when children primarily process parenting behaviors in the moment, without the ability for deeper cognitive reframing. At this stage, warmth and psychological control may be perceived simultaneously yet processed without the reflective understanding exhibited by adults. As children mature into adolescence and adulthood, they gain the capacity to contextualize and reinterpret complex parenting dynamics within the broader cultural narrative, as evidenced in the adult samples supporting the buffering and ambiguity models.
Further delving into national communication styles provided additional context for these findings. The Dutch cultural tendency toward direct communication appears to create clearer boundaries between expressions of warmth and psychological control, enabling children to distinguish warmth as supportive rather than manipulative. Conversely, the more indirect communication style prevalent in post-communist Poland might foster a conflation of warmth with control. In such settings, children might internalize maternal warmth as a controlling strategy, reflecting a culturally embedded nuance in parental messaging that complicates attachment security.
The researchers also speculate on the timing and sequencing of parental behaviors across cultures, proposing that Polish parents may frequently couple expressions of love with behavioral demands (“I love you, but you should…”), inadvertently merging warmth with control in a single communicative act. Dutch parents, conversely, may utilize warmth and psychological control more independently. This separation might prevent warmth from being perceived as an instrument of control, thus manifesting the buffering model in the Dutch context. While these interpretations are preliminary, they invite further research into temporality and situational specificity of parenting tactics.
Importantly, this complex interplay between warmth and control under various cultural and developmental circumstances aligns with established theoretical frameworks. The study’s findings resonate with Soenens’ (2007) concept of manipulative warmth in parenting, and echo Finkelhor and Browne’s (1985) betrayal model, which posits that a child’s sense of betrayal is intensified when harmful behaviors originate from a caregiver expected to provide affection and safety. Here, the present study adds a novel dimension by emphasizing that the salience and consequences of such betrayal may vary according to child age and cultural context, highlighting the necessity of situational and developmental sensitivity in attachment research.
The study also contributes to a growing body of cross-cultural attachment scholarship, expanding our understanding of how attachment anxiety and avoidance—dimensions measuring insecurity—are more susceptible to cultural modulation than the more universally consistent dimensions of safe haven and secure base attachment. This nuanced perspective advances the discourse on universality and variability in attachment theory, underscoring how sociopolitical history and prevailing cultural parenting models feed into children’s internal working models of relationships.
Despite its innovative contributions, the research acknowledges limitations that must temper interpretations. Notably, the small Norwegian adult sample size warrants caution, suggesting that findings, while suggestive, require replication in larger cohorts to ensure robustness. Additionally, the reliance on self-report measures, rather than observational or longitudinal data, restricts insight into situational nuances and dynamic parenting behavior patterns. The authors recommend future investigations incorporating direct parent-child interaction observations to better explicate the timing, domain specificity, and situational factors that might influence the interplay between warmth and psychological control.
Furthermore, the researchers highlight that the studies synthesized here were secondary analyses of pre-existing datasets, which may limit the specificity with which hypotheses could be tested. This methodological constraint introduces the possibility of Type I errors, though careful statistical modeling and reporting confidence intervals helped mitigate this risk. Importantly, this study lays the groundwork for purpose-designed future research to more precisely explore these culturally contingent parenting effects on attachment.
In sum, this research represents a critical leap forward in human developmental psychology and cross-cultural studies of parenting, unmasking the intricate ways in which maternal warmth and psychological control converge, diverge, and interact to shape child attachment. The findings underscore that parenting cannot be universally distilled into simple categories of “good” or “bad” but must be understood within the rich tapestry of cultural norms, historical legacies, and developmental capacities. This holistic perspective promises to enhance both academic understanding and practical approaches to supporting families across diverse sociocultural milieus.
As global societies continue to evolve and parenting paradigms shift, these insights will prove invaluable for clinicians, educators, and policymakers seeking to foster secure attachments and healthy child development amid differing cultural expectations. Ultimately, this research challenges us to consider not only the content but also the cultural meaning and temporal context of caregiving behaviors, broadening the lens through which we view the complex human process of attachment formation.
—
Subject of Research: Associations between maternal warmth and psychological control and their effects on child attachment security across diverse cultural and socio-political contexts.
Article Title: Buffering and ambiguity effects of maternal warmth on associations between psychological control and child attachment in a cross-national perspective.
Article References:
Lubiewska, K., Żegleń, M., Głogowska, K. et al. Buffering and ambiguity effects of maternal warmth on associations between psychological control and child attachment in a cross-national perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1309 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05477-5
Image Credits: AI Generated
