Cultural Variation Flashcards
Key study: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) - Aim
To investigate cross-cultural variations in attachment.
Key study: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) - Method
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies from 8 different countries that used Ainsworth’s strange situation. In total, the results of over 1990 infants were included in the analysis.
Key study: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) - Findings
- Great Britain (75%) and Sweden (75%) has the highest percentage of secure attachments.
- Insecure-avoidant attachment was most common in individualistic Western cultures: West Germany (35%) and Netherlands (26%) had the highest percentage of insecure-avoidant attachments.
- Insecure-resistant attachment was most common in collectivist non-western cultures: Israel (29%) and Japan (27%) had the highest percentage of insecure-resistant attachment.
- Most common type of attachment among all countries is secure attachment and least is insecure-resistant attachment.
- Most of the studies came from the US (18).
- There was more variation between studies within countries than between countries.
Key study: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) - Conclusion
Since the global trend seems to reflect the US norm of secure attachment being the most common, it adds weight to the argument that secure attachment is the optimal attachment type for healthy development.
Cultural Similarities: Tronick et al. (1992)
The Efe tribe, located in Zaire, Africa, live in extended family groups where the infants are looked after and even breastfed by different women within the social group. However, infants tend to sleep with their own mothers at night. Although the childrearing practices differ greatly from the Western norms, the infants still showed a preference for a primary attachment figure at 6 months old, supporting Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg’s main findings that secure attachment is the most common globally.
Cultural Differences: Grossman and Grossman (1991)
In German culture, child rearing practices favour independence from a young age whereby infants do not seek interpersonal contact with their parents. As a result, infants from this country appear to be insecurely attached in the strange situation since they do not seek proximity to their mothers or joy upon reunion.
Strength
Point: One strength of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study is that cross-cultural comparison is facilitated by the use of a standardised methodology.
Evidence: All studies included in the meta-analysis used Ainsworth’s Strange Situation procedure, which follows a controlled and standardised set of observational stages to assess infant attachment types.
Justification: This consistency in method means that differences in attachment classifications across various cultures are more likely to reflect genuine cultural variations rather than methodological discrepancies. It also ensures that the findings can be replicated and compared across different contexts with confidence in their procedural reliability.
Implication: As a result, this strengthens the reliability of the overall findings, making the study a more dependable tool for understanding global patterns in attachment.
Strength
Point: A key strength of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis is its exceptionally large sample size.
Evidence: The analysis drew upon data from 32 separate studies conducted across 8 different countries, incorporating findings from approximately 1990 infants.
Justification: This large and diverse sample is advantageous because it minimises the influence of anomalous findings and reduces the impact of individual differences. It also helps ensure that the observed patterns in attachment types are not simply the result of chance or limited contextual factors.
Implication: Consequently, the study has strong population validity, meaning the findings are more likely to be representative of global attachment trends.
Counterargument: However, a weakness of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis is that their sample lacked cultural balance, including potential bias.
Evidence: Out of the 32 studies included, 27 were conducted in individualistic cultures, such as the USA, UK, and Germany, with only a handful representing collectivist cultures like Japan, China, and Israel.
Justification: This uneven distribution means that the findings are disproportionately influenced by individualistic cultural norms and child-rearing practices. As a result, the attachment trends identified may reflect cultural bias, particularly towards Western standards of behaviour.
Implication: This reduces the population validity of the findings, as they may not be fully generalisable to collectivist cultures, ultimately limiting the universality of conclusions drawn about global attachment patterns.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis is that it fails to account for the greater variation within cultures than between countries.
Evidence: Research by Sagi et al. and Sagi and Lewkowicz challenges Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s findings by demonstrating that within-country variations in attachment patterns are considerable. Sagi et al. observed a sample of 82 infants in Israel and found that 7 infants displayed an insecure-avoidant attachment, 47 infants had a secure attachment and 28 infants had an insecure-resistant attachment. On the other hand, Sagi and Lewkowicz used a sample of 36 infants in Israel yet found that 1 had an insecure-avoidant attachment, 29 had secure attachments and 6 had insecure-resistant attachments.
Justification: These findings suggest that attachment patterns can be influenced by local cultural practices, which can differ dramatically even within the same country. By focusing primarily on country-to-country comparisons, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg may have overlooked important intra-cultural differences that contribute to variations in attachment types.
Implication: As a result, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study may lack ecological validity because the conclusions may not accurately reflect the complex and diverse ways that attachment can manifest within different cultures. The generalisation of attachment types across countries may fail to account for the nuanced, regional, and cultural differences within those countries, potentially reducing the accuracy of cross-cultural comparisons.
Counterargument: However, the difference in sample sizes between the studies by Sagi et al. and Sagi and Lewkowicz may have instead contributed to the variation in their results when studying attachment types in Israel, rather than intra-cultural variations.
Evidence: Sagi et al. used a sample of 82 participants, which is substantially larger than the 36 participants used in Sagi and Lewkowicz’s study. The smaller sample size in the latter study may have led to less reliable results due to the potential for sampling bias or greater variability within such a small group.
Justification: The large discrepancy in sample sizes between these two studies could be a significant factor in the different attachment patterns observed. A smaller sample is more likely to be affected by outliers or random variation, making it less representative of the wider population. Therefore, the variation found by Sagi ad Lewkowicz may be less reliable, and the findings of Sagi et al. with a larger sample size may provide a more generalisable perspective.
Implication: This lowers the reliability of both studies as it suggests that the differences in sample sizes between the two studies may partly explain the variations in their results rather than intra-cultural variation itself.
Weakness
Point: Ainsworth and Van Ijezendoorn’s findings may lack temporal validity due to the evolving nature of family structures and caregiving practices over time.
Evidence: Simonelli et al. conducted a study using the Strange Situation to assess attachment types in a contemporary sample of Italian infants. They found a significantly lower percentage of secure attachments and a higher percentage of avoidant attachments compared to historical data from Italian families.
Justification: These shifts in attachment patterns are argued to reflect adaptations to modern lifestyles, such as increased maternal employment and reliance on alternative caregivers. The increase in avoidant attachments may not necessarily indicate dysfunction but rather a healthy coping strategy, with infants becoming more emotionally self-sufficient in response to reduced maternal presence.
Implication: This challenges the temporal validity of Ainsworth’s original classifications and Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analytic findings, as attachment behaviours and their interpretations may have evolved, meaning earlier conclusions may not accurately reflect contemporary caregiver-infant dynamics.
