Attachment - Cultural Variations Flashcards
1
Q
What is culture?
A
A set of norms, traditions, beliefs and values shared by a large group of people.
2
Q
What is individualist culture?
A
Typically Western, and emphasise independence, individuality and autonomy at the expense of group goals, resulting in a strong sense of competition.
3
Q
What is collectivist culture?
A
Typically Eastern, and emphasise group membership, interdependence (relying on each other) and cooperation.
4
Q
What are cultural variations?
A
Are the differences in norms and values that exist between people in different groups. In attachment research, we are concerned with the differences in the proportion of children of different attachment types.
5
Q
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988)
Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the strange situation
A
Aims:
- How does attachment work in different cultures?
- To investigate the types of attachment across cultures and to see how the three main attachment styles applied.
- To investigate if attachment styles (secure and insecure) are universal (the same) across cultures, or culturally specific (vary considerably from place to place, due to traditions, the social environment, or beliefs about children).
6
Q
VI and K (1988) - Procedure
A
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) did not collect the data for this study, instead they analyzed data from other studies using a method called meta analysis. The selected studies had all:
- Used the strange situation.
- Observed only mother-infant pairs (ie not father- or other carer-pairs).
- Classified infants into one of the attachment types A (Avoidant), B (Secure) or C (Ambivalent / Resistant).
- Using a meta analysis (statistical technique) they calculated the average percentage for the different attachment styles (e.g. secure, avoidant, resistant) in each country.
- The choice of studies also excluded any identifying special groups of children, such as those with Down Syndrome, any less than 35 pairs and any using children older than 2 years. (1990 participants)
- The total meta analysis included 32 study samples from eight countries.
7
Q
VI and K (1988) - Findings
A
- It was found that secure attachment was the most common type of attachment in all cultures. The lowest percentage of secure attachments was shown in China, and the highest in Great Britain. (Type C was the least common)
- Results showed that individualistic countries that support independence such as Germany had high levels of anxious avoidant, whereas countries that are more culturally close (collectivist), such as Japan, had quite high levels of ambivalent resistant.
- Great Britain and the US are individualistic – we encourage independence and not being reliant on others, hence the exploration behaviour. Many children are used to being in day care but yet not used to strangers, which could explain the avoidant behaviour on separation
- Japan is a collectivist culture. Japanese children are very rarely left by their mother. So the distress they show when she leaves is probably more due to shock than it is to insecure attachment. The distress they show when left alone with the stranger is also more likely to be due to absence of the mother.
- The German study highlights a high percentage of avoidant behaviour, typical of independent children. This is not surprising given that Grossmann et al (1985) say that German parents seek ‘independent, non-clingy infants, who do not make demands on parents, but obey their commands.’
8
Q
VI and K (1988) - Conclusion
A
- The overall consistency in secure attachment types leads to the conclusion that there may be universal (innate) characteristics that underpin infant and caregiver interactions.
- However, the significant variations of insecure attachments demonstrate that universality is limited. Implications include the linking of the variation in attachment to child-rearing practices and environmental factors.
- The German study highlights a high percentage of avoidant behavior, typical of independent children. This is not surprising given that Grossmann et al (1985) say that German parents seek ‘independent, non-clingy infants, who do not make demands on parents, but obey their commands.’
- Israeli children were reared in a Kibbutz (communal living) so were used to being separated from their mother. As a result they do not show anxiety when their mother leaves. However, they are not used to strangers so get distressed when left alone with the stranger. This explains the high percentage of resistant behavior.
- Therefore, all the most common type is consistent, the variations within the proportions are influenced by culture, showing that it does have an interference with attachment using Ainsworth’s model and procedure
- They also studied the differences within a culture as well as between cultures to discern a difference
9
Q
The results - data
A
USA (18 studies)
- Secure = 65%
- Insecure Avoidant = 21%
- Insecure Resistant = 14%
UK (1)
- Secure = 75%
- Insecure Avoidant = 22%
- Insecure Resistant = 3%
Holland (4)
- Secure = 67%
- Insecure Avoidant = 26%
- Insecure Resistant = 7%
Germany (3)
- Secure = 57%
- Insecure Avoidant = 35%
- Insecure Resistant = 8%
10
Q
The results - data 2
A
Japan (2)
- Secure = 68%
- Insecure Avoidant = 5%
- Insecure Resistant = 27%
China (1)
- Secure = 50%
- Insecure Avoidant = 25%
- Insecure Resistant = 25%
Israel (2)
- Secure = 64%
- Insecure Avoidant = 7%
- Insecure Resistant = 29%
Sweden (1)
- Secure (74%)
- Insecure Avoidant (22%)
- Insecure Resistant (4%)
11
Q
Evaluation of VI & K (1988)
A
- The Strange Situation test assumes behaviour has the same meaning in all cultures, when in reality cultural perception and understanding of behaviour differ greatly -it may be culturally biased as it was created in the USA and is ethnocentric with its norms and values - for example, the belief that attachment is related to anxiety in separation may not be the case in all cultures
- Many studies have biased samples which cannot all be representative of an entire culture, and the vast majority of the studies focused on Western culture
- Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg report differences in attachment within a culture are far greater than those between cultures - found that intra-cultural variation was nearly 1 1/2 times that of inter-cultural variation - there is a bigger differences within cultures than there are between them
- In some countries, this intra-cultural variation is larger than in others such as Germany compared to Japan (proved Ainsworth had some external validity, but was not extensive enough in her analysis and categories of attachment styles)
- Concluded it was wrong to think of everyone in a culture having the same practices - subcultures all have their own ways of rearing children within a larger culture (extensive)
- Studies may be ethically or racially biased or be social class specific, and this cultural difference produces different child rearing and therefore variations in attachment
12
Q
Evaluation of meta-analysis
A
- The calculation used for averages was invalid - they used 18 studies to get an average for the USA but only 1 for China
- The sample size was also invalid - there were no African, Australiasian or South American studies along with this
- There could be observer bias as different people evaluated the attachment styles/type in each country and study
- Media influence and globalisation could have influenced the way children form attachments in each culture
13
Q
Jin et al (2012)
A
- Conducted a study to compare the proportion of attachment types in Korea to other studies
- The Strange Situation was used to assess 87 children, with most children being securely attached - more of those who were insecurely attached were resistant, with only one being avoidant
- This was consistent with other countries in terms of Type B being the most common, being the closest in results to Japan as they have quite similar child rearing styles
- The main issue with studying different countries = cultural bias
