7. Cultural Variations In Attachment Flashcards
What is culture?
Norms and values that exist within a group of people
What is cross-cultural variation?
Differences in cultural norms existing between different groups of people
What may vary between cultures in child-rearing practices?
Environment, traditions, beliefs about children
Who researched cultural variations in attachment and when?
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenburg in 1988
What are the two aims of research into cultural variations of attachment?
- To look at the proportions of the three types of attachment identified by Ainsworth across a range of cultures
- To investigate differences within cultures (intracultural) and between cultures (intercultural)
What type of study was used to investigate cultural variations in attachment?
Meta-analysis (analysis of experimental data from several similar studies)
How many studies were used and from which countries?
32 studies from 8 countries (Great Britain, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, United States, Israel, Germany, China)
How many children were used in the study?
A total of 1990
How was the data meta-analysed?
Proportions of infants with different attachment types within in each country were combined and weighted for sample size
What age of children were used?
Under two years old
Which caregiver was used?
Mothers only
What were the attachment types based on?
The Strange Situation (Secure, Insecure avoidant, Insecure resistant)
What was the overall most common attachment type found?
Secure
Which countries had the most & least secure children?
Great Britain with 75%
China with 50%
Which countries had the most & least insecure avoidant children?
The Netherlands 38%
Japan 7%
Which countries had the most & least insecure resistant children?
Israel 30%
Great Britain 3%
Why are German children more likely to be labelled ‘insecure avoidant’? Who discovered this?
- Grossman + Grossman
- German cultures involve independance from parents
- Explains lack of proximity seeking
What did Takashi find in Japanese children and why? Where else found this?
- High proportion of resistant
- Children are barely away from parents
- 90% of Strange Situations had to be stopped when parent left due to high separation anxiety
- Jin et. Al also found this in Korea
What effect did young mothers returning to work have on attachment classification according to Simonella et. Al?
- High insecure avoidant
- Young mothers often used childcare and return to work
What implications would this study have on cultural variations in attachment?
- Secure attachments are the norm so suggests attachment is innate & universal behaviour
- Child rearing practices do seem to influence attachment type
- Intracultural differences were far more varied than between cultures; issues with oversimplifying a country as a culture
How does a large sample size affect the validity of the study?
- Almost 2000
- Anomalies can be identified & more accurate results
- Increased internal validity
Why may the sample use be unrepresentative?
- Uneven number of studies: 1/32 in china and 15/32 in USA
- Questions how much knowledge we have especially due to large intracultural variation
Why is it interact to use countries as cultures?
- Many subcultures within a country
- Different childcare practices within these cultures
- E.g variation between rural and urban areas found in Tokyo, Japan
- Explains higher intracultural differences
- Decreases credibility of study
Why is the Strange Situation methodology biased?
- Based on American norms and values
- Questionable whether children can be judged with these methods
How may the Strange Situation suggest an imposed etic?
Labels children from other cultures as insecure if they don’t conform to American norms
Why may the Strange Situation methodology lack internal validity?
‘Attachment type’ could be due to innate temperament of child (Kagan et. Al) not relationship with caregiver
What implications does a lack of internal validity have?
Emphasises how little understanding we have of cultural variations in attachment
