Attachment- Cultural variations in attachment Flashcards
Cultural variations -
‘Culture’ refers 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?
The aim was to examine the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachments across different countries and to explore variations within the same countries.
What procedure did van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg use in their study?
They conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies from eight countries, using the Strange Situation to assess attachment types in 1,990 children.
What were the key findings of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study?
Secure attachment was the most common type in all countries, but proportions varied (e.g., 75% in Britain, 50% in China). Insecure-resistant was the least common, and insecure-avoidant was most common in Germany and least common in Japan. Variations within countries were 150% greater than between countries.
What did Simonella et al. (2014) find in their Italian study?
They found 50% secure and 36% insecure-avoidant attachments, suggesting that cultural changes, such as increased use of professional childcare, may reduce secure attachment rates.
What did Jin et al. (2012) find in their Korean study?
Most infants were securely attached, but among insecurely attached children, resistant attachment was more common than avoidant, similar to findings in Japan, possibly due to similar child-rearing styles.
What conclusions can be drawn from cross-cultural attachment studies?
Secure attachment is the norm across cultures, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal. However, cultural practices also influence attachment types.
What is a strength of using large samples in cross-cultural attachment studies?
Large samples, like the nearly 2,000 children in van Ijzendoorn’s meta-analysis, increase internal validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results.
Why might samples in cross-cultural studies be unrepresentative of the culture?
Studies often compare countries rather than cultures, and within-country samples may over-represent specific groups (e.g., those in poverty), affecting caregiving and attachment patterns.
What is the issue with using the Strange Situation in cross-cultural research?
The Strange Situation may be an imposed etic, as it was designed in an Anglo-American context and may not apply to other cultures. For example, behaviors interpreted as insecure in one culture (e.g., independence in Germany) may not indicate insecurity in another.
What is the difference between etic and emic in cross-cultural psychology?
Etic refers to cultural universals, while emic refers to cultural uniqueness. Applying an etic approach (e.g., the Strange Situation) to other cultures may overlook cultural-specific behaviors.
What alternative explanation did van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg propose for cultural similarities in attachment?
They suggested that cultural similarities may result from the global dissemination of parenting ideas through books and media, rather than innate attachment behaviors.
How does temperament challenge the validity of the Strange Situation in cross-cultural research?
If attachment type is more related to temperament than to the caregiver relationship, the Strange Situation may measure anxiety rather than attachment, undermining conclusions about cultural variations.
What are the implications of cultural variation research for attachment theories?
The research supports the universality of secure attachment but highlights the influence of cultural practices, suggesting that attachment theories must account for cultural context.
What are the implications of the Strange Situation potentially measuring anxiety rather than attachment?
If the Strange Situation measures anxiety, conclusions about cultural variations in attachment may be invalid, as differences could reflect temperament or cultural responses to anxiety rather than attachment styles.
