Attachment - Cultural Variations Flashcards
What are cultural variations in attachment?
Cultural variations refer to the norms and values that exist within any group of people. Cultural variations then 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.
What was the aim of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) study?
Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries. They also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.
How many studies did van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analyse, and what sample size was included?
They conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies of attachment that used the Strange Situation. These 32 studies included results for 1,990 children.
What were the main findings of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) meta-analysis?
Secure attachment was the most common classification in all countries.
The proportion of secure attachment ranged from 75% in Britain to 50% in China.
Insecure-resistant was the least common type, ranging from 3% in Britain to 30% in Israel.
Insecure-avoidant attachments were most common in Germany and least common in Japan.
Variation within countries was 150% greater than between countries. For example, one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%.
What did the Italian study by Simonella et al. (2014) find regarding attachment?
The study found 50% were secure and 36% were insecure-avoidant. This is lower than has been found in many studies and may be explained by increasing numbers of mothers of very young children working long hours and using professional childcare.
What did Jin et al. (2012) find in their study of attachment types in Korea?
Jin et al. (2012) found proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to those in most countries, with most infants being secure. However, most classified as insecure were resistant, and only one child was avoidant, similar to the pattern found in Japan.
What is one evaluation point about the sample size in van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study?
A strength of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis is the large sample size, which included data from nearly 2,000 babies and their primary attachment figures across 32 studies in eight countries. This is a significant strength because large samples increase the internal validity of the findings by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by issues such as bad methodology or unusual participants. Therefore, the conclusions drawn about cultural variations in attachment are likely to be more reliable and generalizable.
What is a limitation of using cross-cultural comparisons in attachment studies?
A limitation of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis is that it aimed to study cultural variation but often compared countries rather than cultures. For instance, within-country differences were 150% greater than between-country differences. This is a problem because one sample might over-represent certain groups, such as people living in poverty, which can affect caregiving and patterns of attachment. As a result, the findings may not accurately reflect genuine cultural variations, limiting the validity of the conclusions.
What is a limitation of the Strange Situation methodology when applied to different cultures?
A significant limitation of the Strange Situation, used in cross-cultural studies, is its imposed etic. This refers to trying to apply a theory or technique designed in one culture to another. For example, the Strange Situation was developed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) based on a British theory, and assumptions like high separation anxiety indicating insecurity might not apply universally. In Germany, for instance, independence is encouraged, so infants may show less separation anxiety while still being securely attached. This limits the cultural applicability of the method and raises questions about its validity across different contexts.
What is an alternative explanation for similarities in attachment across cultures?
An alternative explanation for similarities in attachment across cultures is the role of global influences rather than biological universality. Bowlby suggested that attachment is innate and universal, as supported by the similarities observed across studies. However, van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg argued that cross-cultural similarities could also reflect the influence of mass media, which spreads parenting ideas and practices worldwide. This suggests that cultural practices may converge due to shared exposure to similar information, challenging the idea that attachment patterns are purely biologically determined.
