Attachment - Cultural variations in attachment

Question 1

What did Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conduct?

Answer 1

A study looking at proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant across a range of countries to assess cultural variation

Question 2

What was the procedure of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research?

Answer 2

They located 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation was used, yielded resuts from 1990 children and looked into 8 countries

Question 3

What is meta-analysis?

Answer 3

When the results of the studies were combined and analysed together, weighting each study for its sample size

Question 4

In the findings, what was the most common classification?

Answer 4

Secure attachment

Question 5

In the findings, what percentage of secure attachment was in the UK?

Answer 5

75%

Question 6

In the findings, what where the individualistic cultures rates?

Answer 6

Insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth’s original sample (under 14%)

Question 7

In the findings, what percentage of secure attachment was in China?

Answer 7

50%

Question 8

In the findings, what where the collectivist samples rates?

Answer 8

Insecure-resistant attachment waa above 25% in countries like Israel, China and Japan. Insecure-avoidant attachment was reduced

Question 9

What did Alessandra Simonelli et al (2014) conduct an experiment in Italy on?

Answer 9

To see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in previous studies

Question 10

What did Simonelli (2014) assess?

Answer 10

76 babies aged 12 months using the strange situation

Question 11

What did Simonelli (2014) find?

Answer 11

50% were secure, 36% were insecure-avoidant

Question 12

What does Simonelli’s (2014) findings show?

Answer 12

There is a lower rate of secure attachment and higher rate of secure-avoidant attachment that has been found in many studies

Question 13

What does Simonelli’s (2014) findings mean?

Answer 13

That there are an increasing amount of mothers of very young children working longer hours and using childcare

Question 14

What do Simonelli’s (2014) findings suggest?

Answer 14

That patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change

Question 15

What did Mi Kyoung Gin et al (2012) conduct an experiment in Korea on?

Answer 15

To compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies

Question 16

What did Kyoung Gin (2012) assess?

Answer 16

87 babies using strange situation

Question 17

What did Kyoung Gin (2012) find?

Answer 17

Most of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only 1 baby was avoidant

Question 18

What is the distribution of Kyoung Gin’s (2012) findings similar to?

Answer 18

The distribution of attachment types found in Japan

Question 19

How is the distribution of Kyoung Gin’s (2012) findings similar to the attachment types in Japan be explained?

Answer 19

Since Japan and Korea have quite similar child-rearing styles this similiarity might be explained in terms of child rearing style

Question 20

What is the conclusion of the cultural variations in attachment?

Answer 20

Secure attachment seems to be the norm in most cultures but cultural practices have an influence on attachment type

Question 21

What is one strength of cultural variations in attachment?

Answer 21

Indigenous researchers

Question 22

What is the evaluation of cultural variations in attachment having indigenous researchers?

Answer 22

P: Studies were conducted by indigenous researchers
E: Indigenous researchers are from the same background as the participants
E: Problems such as researchers’ misunderstanding of the language can be avoided
L: enhances validity as the researchers and participants communicated successfully

Question 23

What is one limitation of cultural variations in attachment?

Answer 23

Confounding variables

Question 24

What is the evaluation of cultural variations in attachment having confounding variables?

Answer 24

P: Impact of confounding variables
E: Sample characteristics such as poverty and social class can confound results
E: Environmental variables such as size of the room can confound results
E: I.E less visible proximity seeking because of room size could classify the baby as avoidant
L: May not tell us much about cross-cultural patterns on attachment

Question 25

What is another limitation of cultural variations in attachment?

Answer 25

Imposed etic

Question 26

What is the evaluation of cultural variations in attachment having an imposed etic?

Answer 26

P: Trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context
E: Imposed etic occurs when we assume an idea that works in one cultural context will work in another
E: An example is that if a child shows a lack of affection in the UK or US, it represents an avoidant attachment
E: If a child shows a lack of affection in Germany it is represented as independence so strange situation does not apply in Germany
L: Behaviours measured by the strange situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts