Attachment: Cultural Variations Flashcards
Van Ijzendoorn And Kroomberg (1988) Research.
Aim: Investigate types of attachment across cultures and to see how the three main attachment styles applied.
Procedure: Meta-analysis. Data from 32 studies in 8 different countries was analysed. All 32 studies used strange situation procedure to study attachment. Calculated average for each attachment types.
Findings: Secure attachment (Type B) was most common type. Lowest % of secure attachment (Type B) was in China and highest in Britain. Highest % of insecure resistant was in Israel.
Conclusion: Overall consistency in secure attachment (Type B) leads to the conclusion that there may be universal (innate) characteristics that underpin infant and caregiver interactions.
Simonella Et Al (Italy 2014) Research.
Aim: Investigate whether the proportion of babies of different attachment types matches those found in previous studies.
Procedure: Assessed 76, 12 month Italian babies using strange situation procedure.
Findings: 50% were secure (Type B), 36% were insecure avoidant (Type A). This is a lower rate of secure attachment that has been found in previous studies, Researcher suggested it was due to increasing numbers of mothers with very young children work long hours so use childcare.
Conclusion: Findings suggests that cultural changes can make a dramatic difference of secure and insecure attachment.
Jin Et Al (Korea 2012) Research.
Aim: To compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies.
Procedure: 87 babies were used. Used SSP and a freeplay session.
Findings: Overall proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to other countries. With most infants being secure (Type B). However only one Korean baby was classified as avoidant (Type A).
Conclusion: Findings support idea that the basic secure base function is universal and the SSP is a valid measure of secure attachment. However can be suggested that cultural differences in caregiving may result in variations in how this function is manifested.
Evaluation: Strength - Large Samples.
- A strength of combining the results of attachment studies from different countries is the large sample size.
- For example in the van Ijzendoorn meta-analysis there were around 2000 babies.
- A large sample size increases the internal validity of a study as it reduces the impact of anomalous results.
Evaluation: Weakness - Unrepresentative Of Culture.
- The samples in cultural variations studies tend to be unrepresentative of culture.
- The meta-analysis used by Ijzendoorn and Kroomberg claimed to study cultural variations whereas the comparisons were between countries.
- There are different cultures and child-rearing practices in each country.
- Therefore comparison between countries may have little meaning and the characteristics of the sample need to be identified.
Evaluation: Weakness - Biased Assessment.
- Another weakness of cultural variations in attachment is that the method of assessment is biased.
- The SS was designed by an American researcher based on a British theory.
- There is a question over whether an Anglo-American theory and method of assessment can be applied to other countries.
Evaluation: Weakness - Alternative Explanations.
- There are alternative explanations for cultural similarity.
- Bowbly’s explanation is based on the idea that attachment is innate whereas Ijzendoorn and Kroomberg suggested that cultural differences may reflect the effects of mass media.
- The contradicting explanations make it difficult to determine the reasoning for cultural similarities in attachment.
Evaluation: Weakness - Strange Situation And Temperament.
- It has been questioned what the SS measures.
- Kagan (1982) has suggested that temperament is more important influence on behaviour in the SS than attachment.
- This means that temperament may be a confounding variable in the SS.
- Therefore challenging the validity of the methodology.
