Cultural Variations in attachment Flashcards
why is there a cultural difference in attachment
- sub - cultural differences
- other cultures differences in rearing their children
what are the potential sub cultural differences
- class = urban (media) vs rural
- geography
- religion
- ethnicity
Van Ijendoorn + Kroonenberg (1988)
- meta - analysis
- 32 studies (SSC)
- 8 countries
what kind of study is I / K 1988
meta - analysis of 32 studies
how many countries were considered in the I / K meta analysis
8 countries
what were the avg attachment types
secure most common
avoidant second
resistant third
Issues with Kroonenberg’s study
1.5x greater intra cultural variance
Takahashi (1990)
Grossman and Grossman (1991)
Takahashi (1990) procedure / findings
60 1 year olds
68% secure 32% resistant
Takahashi (1990) issues
procedure had to be halted - immense distress - if not 80% secure
babies spend 2 years 100% with mothers
taught avoidance is rude
SS not suitable in Japan
Grossman and Grossman (1991)
Germany
interpersonal distance
no proximity seeking
appear avoidant
Grossman and Grossman (1991) German mothers
German mothers observed
responsive - sensitive
valued independence and self reliance
Sagi (1991) 4 countries SSC procedure
4 countries
7 SSC studies
Sagi (1991) findings
only US infants similar to Ainsworth’s study 71% secure
Israeli Kibbutz = 62%
Takahashi
Grossman
Israeli Kibbutz difference
children separate from primary attachment yet they have no contact with strangers
Critique and Eval of meta - analysis (good)
Van Ijendoorn and Kroonenberg used a mix of collectivist and Individualist cultures in the analysis
SSC is replicable (all controlled variables)
Critique and Eval of meta-analysis - (bad)
classed observable differences as minor mistakes
some samples were small - not generalisable - heavily weighted US - bias
Ethnocentrism in cross cultural variance
claiming 1 attachment type is best is ethnocentrism
imposed etic in cross cultural variance
SSC is based on Western cultural norms and practices
meaningless assessment for other cultures
issues with the etic
meaningless assessments for divergent cultures as its not tailored to the norms of other cultures
what is the main cultural conflict
collectivist and individualist
how could SSC improve
instead of imposed Western etic - tailored individual indigenous analytical tools should be implemented for accuracy
what does SSC assume
Universalism in attachment
is the analysis fluid
no it is rigid, following what the Western analysis suggests - widest variance = intra
external validity
subverted - confounding variables may render conclusions meaningless or inaccurate
what are the issues with EV
conclusions are meant to be applicable yet they raise more Qs
methodological issues with SSC MA
original interrater reliability = 0.94
changes or variance in operationalisation = confounding variables that reduce this reliability - lacks consistency
Ethical issues with the MA
children not used to conditions - stressed
Summary of EVAL of MA
findings suggest universality
limited samples
not rep of sub cultures
ethnocentrism
imposed etic
ethics
studies that suggest attachment suffers from cultural bias
Rothbaum (2000)
Kroonenberg and Sagi (2001)
Rothbaum (2000)
Euro centricity imposed etic
independence not promoted in all cultures
rooted in US culture
C hyp = secure is seen as more social competence / emotional competence = in Japan emotional inhibition
Kroonenberg and Sagi (2001)
rural areas = more resistant than urban who are influenced by media
not all experiences are homogenous - class geography and race - SS based on homogenous assumptions
Study that suggests attachment is universal
Posada and Jacobs (2001)
Posada and Jacobs (2001)
sensitivity promotes security in our environment - secure most common as its the most adaptive
study suggesting its a mix of universal and individual
maternal sensitivity may vary yet core concepts of attachment are universal such as the secure base etc.
