Cultural variations eval Flashcards
Competing explanations
Bowlby’s theory is perhaps the most obvious explanation for the similarity of patterns of attachment types in different cultures. Bowlby explains this similarity by saying attachment is innate and universal.
However there are other equally possible explanations. One of these is van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s idea that any original cultural differences may have been obscured as parenting practices are affected by conformity to the norms of parenting presented in the media. A third possible set of explanations comes from learning theory. This would suggest that the same associations and reinforcements are likely in a wide range of cultural contexts.
In conclusion, there is no evidence of cross-cultural similarity in attachment types that cannot be explained by any of these views. The most popular and obvious explanation is Bowlby’s theory. Learning theory, at least in its early forms, is no longer a popular explanation for attachment, but the idea of media influence is an intriguing possibility.
Indigenous researcher
One strength of research into cultural variations is that most of teh studies were conducted by indigenous psychologist.
Indigenous pscychologists are those from the same cultural background as the participants for example van izenndoorn and krooneberg included research by a German team and Akashi who is Japanese. This kind of research means that many of teh potential problems in cross cultural research can eb avoided such as researchers misunderstandings of the langue used by participants or having difficult communicating instructions to them. Difficulties can also include bias because of one nation stereotypes of another. This means there is excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated successfully enhancing validity of the data collected.
counterpoint indigenous researcher
Counterpoint. However this has not been true of all cross cuktralk attachment research. For example Gilda morello and Edward troniuck were outsiders from America when they studied child rearing and patterns of attachment in the eye of zaire. Their data might have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from particpansty outside their own culture. This means that the data from some countries might been affected by bias and difficulty in cross cultural communication.
Confounding vairblaes
One limitation of cross cultural research including meta analyses of patterns of attachment types of the impact of confudomng variables on findings. Studies conducted in different countries are not matched for mtethodlogy when they are compared in reviews. Sample characterises such as poverty social class and urban make up can confound results as can the age of participants studied in different countries. Rnviromental variables might also differ between studies and confound result. For example the size of teh room and the amiability of interesting toys there babies might appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms with attractive toys compared to large bare rooms. Less visible proximity seeking because of room size might make a child more likely to eb classified as aviodneant. This means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross cultural patterns of attachment
Imposed epic
A further limitation of cross cultural research is in trying to impose a test deigned for one cultural context to another context. Corsss cultural psychology includes the ideas of emic and etic. Imposed etic occurs when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another an example of this in attachment research is in the sue of babies respond to reunion with the caregiver in teh strange situation. In braitin and the us lack of affection on reunion with may indicate as avoidant attachment. But in Germany such behaviour would be more likely interpreted as independence rather than insecurity. Therefore that part of the strange situation may not work in Germany. This means that the behaviours measured by the strnage situation may not have the same mainsgs ion different cultural contexts and comparing them across cultures is meaningless.
