Cultural Variations Flashcards
Outline the procedure of the van Uzendoorn & Pieter Kroonenberg (1988)
-Located 32 studies of attachment where S.S. been used to investigate proportions of infants with different attachment types
-32 studies conducted in 8 countries - 15 in USA
-Overall 32 studies yielded results for 1,990 kids
-Data for these studies were meta-analysed, results being combined & weighted for sample size
Outline findings of the van Uzendoorn
-In all countries secure attachment was most common classification, but varied from 75% in GBR to 50% in china
-Insecure-resistant was least common type, ranging from 3% in GBR to 30% in Israel
-Insecure-avoidant most common in Germany & least in Japan
Evaluate the cultural variations in attachment
STRENGTH - Large samples
E.g. - In van Uzendoorn meta-analysis there was 1,990 babies and their primary attachment figures
Ex. - Large samples increase internal validity by reducing impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or very unusual participants
LIMITATION - Samples unrepresentative of culture (comparisons between countries not cultures)
E.g. - Within country there are different cultures with different child-rearing practises
Sample might over-represent people in poverty, this stress may affect caregiving thus attachment
Ex. - Comparisons between countries may have little meaning, particular characteristics & caregiving styles of sample must be specified
LIMITATION - Biased assessment method (involvement of Etic and Emic)
E.g. - S.S. Designed by American researcher based on British theory, so there’s question on whether Anglo-American theories & assessments can be applied to other cultures
Trying to apply theory designed for one culture to another culture is imposed Etic
Ex. - Example of imposed Etic may be idea lack of separation anxiety & pleasure upon reunion indicate insecure attachment. In Germany this is seen as more independence than avoidance, thus not insecure within cultural context
