Attachment: Cultural Variations Of Types Of Attachment 24/25 UPDATED Flashcards
What was the Aim of Van Ijzendoorn’s cultural variations?
To investigate cross cultural variations in attachment
What was the sample of Van Ijzendoorn’s cultural variations?
32 studies of the Strange Situation from from 8 countries using 2000 children
AO3 - How can we evaluate the sample used in Van Ijzendoorn’s research?
- high population validity
How many children did cultural variations use?
2000
How many countries did the analysis of the strange situation in cultural variations use?
8 countries
Cultural variations in attachment in 32 studies of what other psychological study?
Strange situation
What was Van Ijzendoorn’s method?
Meta analysis of the strange situation (controlled obs)
What is a meta- analysis?
Where a researcher will gather results and findings from several pieces of research that already exist and compare findings to develop overall conclusions about behaviour, in this case - attachment.
FIndings: Which was the most common attachment type in all cultures?
Secure
Which insecure attachment type was most dominant in western cultures?
Insecure avoidant
Which insecure attachment type was most dominant in non-western cultures?
Insecure resistant
What was the most significant finding?
there was 1.5x greater variation within cultures than between cultures, for example, in the USA, one study found 46% of the sample were securely attached, compared to another study in the USA that found 90% of the sample was securely attached.
What did Van Ijzendoorn conclude?
That there are cultural variations in attachment with differences between insecure attachment types, however there are still some similarities between attachments cross culturally as secure attachment was the most common.
Extra research into cultural variations in attachment was conducted by Takahashi (1990) - explain what they did and found.
Takahashi replicated the strange situation with 60 middle class Japanese infants and mothers using the same standardised procedure and behavioural categories.
It was found that 68% were securely attached, 0% were insecure avoidant and 32% were insecure resistant.
AO3 - How can we use Takahashi’s research to evaluate Van Ijzendoorn’s research into cultural variations in attachment and why?
As research to support as Takahashi found just like Van Izjendoorn that Secure attachment was the most common attachment type and that in non-western cultures the most dominant insecure type is insecure resistant.
AO3 - Van Izjendoorn’s sample selection can be praised. How?
It has high population validity
AO3 - Why does Van Ijzendoorn’s research have high population validity?
Because it was a meta analysis of 32 strange situation studies, using a LARGE sample of over 2000 infants from 8 countries.
AO3 - Why is Van Ijzendoorn’s research having high population validity a strength?
This means that it is easier to generalise the findings that secure attachment is the most common attachment type in all cultures, to the rest of the target population.
AO3 - If Van Izjendoorn’s research can be praised for high population validity, what does this mean for validity?
It increases the external validity of the research into cultural variations in attachment.
AO3 - Although Van Izjendoorn’s research can be praised for high population validity, why can the sample be criticised?
For being culture bias.
AO3 - Why is the research into cultural variations in attachment criticised for being culture bias?
Because over half of the studies (18/32) were carried out in the USA (individualistic western culture) and only 5 were carried out in non-western collectivist cultures.
AO3 - If research into cultural variations in attachment is culture bias, why is that a problem?
It means that it is difficult to generalise the findings that secure attachments are the most common across all cultures when explaining different types of attachment.
AO3 - If research into cultural variations in attachment is criticised for being culture bias, how does that affect the validity?
It lowers the external validity of the research into cultural variations in attachment.
AO3 - Research into cultural variations in attachment types has been criticised for imposed etic. Define what is meant by Imposed Etic.
When a researcher creates a tool in one culture e.g. western culture to measure a certain behaviour and assumes that the tool can be used universally across all cultures.
AO3 - Why can research into cultural variations in attachment be criticised for imposed etic?
Because the research uses the strange situation tool created by Ainsworth in the USA (western culture). This means it is based on American child rearing practices and ignores practices in other cultures (that aren’t American).
AO3 - Give an example of how using the SSC tool for cultural variations in attachment may cause problems when trying to define attachment globally.
For example, in Germany independence is encouraged in infants, therefore these infants may show insecure avoidant attachment behaviour during the strange situation, However, this behaviour is considered desirable to their culture rather than ‘negative’ and ‘insecure’.
AO3 - How can Van Izjendoorn’s research be criticised for being affected by confounding variables?
Because the studies compared within the meta-analysis are not matched for methodology. For example, studies may have varying samples of different social class or age of infants or differing environmental factors within the study such as the size of the room or availability of attractive toys to encourage the infant to play/explore more.
AO3 - Why is research into cultural variations in attachment having confounding variables a problem for understanding attachment globally?
This means that research may not tell us anything about cross cultural variations in attachment.
AO3 - If cultural variations research has confounding variables, how will validity be affected?
It will lower the internal validity of research into cultural variations in attachment.
