Wahring et al. argue that men’s psychological dependence on women for emotional intimacy may outweigh women’s dependence on men for material resources. They identify this asymmetry in heterosexual romantic relationships, where men tend to rely more heavily on their female partners for emotional closeness, while women also meet affiliative and support needs through broader social networks. However, as the authors note, the empirical basis of their model is largely drawn from WEIRD cultural contexts (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010), raising important questions about its generalizability across diverse socioecological settings.

We expand on and qualify the model’s main claim by applying a socioecological attachment perspective – specifically the Biobehavioral Cultural Model of Attachment (BCMA; Strand, Reference Strand2020) – to explain culturally variable gender differences in affiliative tendencies and intimacy-seeking behaviors towards kin and nonkin.

Wahring et al.’s thesis draws heavily from the tend-and-befriend theory (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Klein, Lewis, Gruenewald, Gurung and Updegraff2000), which posits that when under stress, and in order to fulfill main caregiving roles, women also engage in affiliative behaviors towards non-kin. Tend-and-befriend theory acknowledges the role of attachment in stress regulation, yet it does not fully articulate the implications of attachment organization for the suggested gendered affiliation patterns, nor does it consider broader socio-ecologic correlates of threat regulation. Emerging evidence suggests that attachment organization may be a more proximal determinant of stress responses than sex alone (Hlay, Johnson, & Levy, Reference Hlay, Johnson and Levy2023). For example, individuals higher in attachment avoidance are more likely to display fight-or-flight responses (Levy et al., Reference Levy, Hlay, Johnson and Witmer2019), whereas secure individuals, regardless of sex, are more inclined toward prosocial and affiliative responses, including tend-and-befriend behaviors (Hlay et al., Reference Hlay, Johnson and Levy2023).

Wahring et al.’s model downplays the role of culture in shaping affiliative patterns towards kin and non-kin. In collectivistic cultures, affiliative behaviors tend to focus on kin, while in individualistic or high social class contexts, greater emotional investment occurs in couple relationships. For instance, in more collectivistic cultures, where emphasis is put on strong-tie relationships with kin, less support seeking is observed with non-kin (Kafetsios & Nezlek, Reference Kafetsios and Nezlek2012; Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, Reference Kim, Sherman and Taylor2008), with both women and men tending more and men befriending more than in WEIRD cultures. Conversely, in the more relationally mobile individualistic cultures (or higher social class environs within cultures), there is more investing in more emotional “give and take” in couples (Selcuk & Gunyadin, Reference Selcuk and Gunaydin2023; Yuki & Schug, Reference Yuki, Schug, Gillath, Adams and Kunkel2012).

We propose that the cultural plasticity of gendered affiliation strategies towards kin and non-kin can be better understood through the lens of socioecological variation in attachment organization. The BCMA frames attachment not as a biologically fixed system but as one that adapts to early experiences of caregiver responsiveness for the regulation of threat (Strand, Vossen, & Savage, Reference Strand, Vossen and Savage2019; Strand, Reference Strand2020). These experiences, which operate through reinforcement patterns – continuous (secure), intermittent (anxious), or absent (avoidant) – shape later affiliative orientations and are embedded within a nested hierarchy of influences – neurobiological (Beckes, Medina-Devilliers, & Coan, Reference Beckes, Medina-Devilliers and Coan2021), behavioral, familial, and cultural. These schedules shape relational orientations that extend into adult social networks: anxious individuals tend to favor strong-tie affiliations with kin, whereas avoidant individuals orient toward weak-tie networks with non-kin. Evidence for these socioecological patterns has recently emerged in the context of behavioral patterns of the Covid-19 pandemic (Kafetsios, Reference Kafetsios2022a) and in a cross-temporal examination of attachment and cultural patterns after a severe economic crisis (Kafetsios, Reference Kafetsios2022b).

Socioecological factors such as environmental harshness and unpredictability can tip the balance toward different attachment schedules (Strand, Reference Strand2022). For instance, high-threat or low-resource environments are more likely to induce avoidant strategies, particularly in males. Conversely, cultural contexts that emphasize social cohesion may foster anxious or secure attachment, especially among females.

This socioecological model aligns with cross-cultural evidence that sex differences in adult attachment – typically with men scoring higher in avoidance and women in anxiety – are most pronounced in low-threat (often WEIRD) societies (Del Giudice, Reference Del Giudice2019); and this is in line with Wahring et al.’s model. However, under conditions of ecological stress, these differences attenuate, primarily due to increased avoidance among women. This convergence reflects adaptive recalibration in mating and affiliative strategies under threat. Avoidance in men is linked to strategies favoring low investment and short-term mating; in women, anxiety promotes partner investment but may shift toward avoidance in severely adverse environments (Del Giudice, Reference Del Giudice2019; Schmitt et al., Reference Schmitt, Alcalay, Allensworth, Allik, Ault, Austers, Bennett, Bianchi, Boholst, Cunen, Braeckman, Brainerd, Caral, Caron, Casullo, Cunningham, Daibo, De Backer, De Souza and Zupanèiè2004).

Thus, observed gender imbalances in intimacy behavior may not reflect fixed socio-biological tendencies but instead represent culturally contingent expressions of underlying attachment organization. The attachment system is responsive to both early reinforcement contingencies and broader ecological affordances, offering a more dynamic and integrative account than either sex/gender-based or trait-based models alone.