CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Flashcards
1
Q
VAN IJZENDOORN & KROONENBERG (1988)
A
- looked at proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant & insecure-resistant attachment across a range of countries
- also looked at differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations WITHIN a culture.
- 32 studies of attachment where the SS was used: conducted in 8 countries; 15 in the USA
- 1,990 children
FINDINGS: - in all countries, secure attachment = most common: but proportion varied from 75% in Britain and 50% in China
- Insecure-resistant = least common: ranged from 3% in Britain to 30% in Israel
- variations WITHIN the same culture = 150% greater than those BETWEEN countries
- e.g. one study in USA found 46% securely attached compared to another found at 90%
2
Q
SIMONELLI ET AL (2014)
A
- conducted study in Italy to see whether the proportion of babies of different attachment types still matched those found in previous studies
- assessed 76 12-month olds
= 50% = secure, 36%= insecure-avoidant - lower rate of secure attachment found in previous studies
- may be due to increasing no. of mothers working long hours and using professional childcare
- suggests cultural changes can make a dramatic difference to patterns of secure & insecure attachment
3
Q
JIN ET AL (2012)
A
- conducted study to compare attachment types in Korea compared to others
- SS used to assess 87 children
- overall proportions of secure & insecure babies = similar to most countries
HOWEVER, more insecurely attached = resistant, only ONE child = avoidant - distribution = similar to that of Japan
- both countries have similar child-rearing practices, may be explained in terms of child-rearing style
4
Q
CONCLUSIONS
A
- secure seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s theory that this attachment is INNATE and UNIVERSAL
- however, research also shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type
5
Q
AO3: LARGE SAMPLES
A
- combining all results of attachment studies = very large sample
- e.g. van Ijzendoorn = almost 2000 babies, Simonella & Jin also had large comparison groups
- increase INTERNAL VALIDITY by reducing the impact of ANOMALOUS RESULTS caused by bad methodology or very unusual ppts.
NOMOTHETIC: these general laws can therefore be used universally as explanations for attachment
6
Q
AO3: SAMPLES TEND TO BE UNREPRESENTATIVE OF CULTURE
A
- van-Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg claimed to study cultural variations, whereas in fact, the comparisons were between COUNTRIES, not CULTURES
- within any country, there are many different cultures, each with different child rearing practices
- one sample may over-represent people living in poverty, the stress of which may affect caregiving and therefore, patterns of attachment
- analysis by VAN IJZENDOORN & SAGI (2001) found that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo (urban) were similar to Western studies, whereas a more rural sample had an OVER-REPRESENTATION of insecure-resistant types.
- therefore comparisons between countries may have little meaning; the particular cultural characteristics of the sample need to be specified
- calls into question the INTERNAL VALIDITY as you are not actually measuring what you intended to measure, this also cannot be generalised to the world if it is based on inaccurate data.
7
Q
AO3: METHOD OF ASSESSMENT IS BIASED
A
- cross cultural psychology includes the ideas of etic & emic
- ETIC = cultural universals
- EMIC = cultural uniqueness
- SS was designed by an American researcher based on a British theory (Bowlby)
- question over whether Anglo-American theories & assessments can be applied to other cultures.
- trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture to another = IMPOSED ETIC
- e.g. the idea that a lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion = insecure attachment
- in Germany, this behaviour may be seen more as independence than avoidance, hence not a sign of insecurity within that cultural context
