cultural variations in attachment

Question 1

what did van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg (1988) look at?

Answer 1

they conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation. they also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture

Question 2

what was van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg’s procedure?

Answer 2

• researchers located 32 studies of attachment where SS had been used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types
• these were conducted in 8 countries, 15 were in the US
• overall, the studies yielded results for 1,990 children
• the data for these 32 studies was meta-analysed
  > the results of the studies were combined and analysed together, weighting each study for its sample size

Question 3

what were van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg’s findings?

Answer 3

• wide variations between the proportions of attachment types in different studies
• in all countries secure attachment was the most common classification. however, the proportion varied from 75% in britain to 50% in china
• variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than those between countries
  > in the US, one study found 46% securely attached and another had 90%

Question 4

what was the difference in findings between individualist and collectivist cultures?

Answer 4

• in individualist cultures, rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to ainsworth’s original sample (all under 14%)
• in collectivist samples from china, japan and israel, rates were about 25% and rates of insecure-avoidant attachment were reduced

Question 5

an italian study of cultural variations

Answer 5

• alessandra simonelli et al. (2014) wanted to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in previous studies
• assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using SS
• 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant
• this is a lower rate of secure and higher rate of avoidant attachment than has been found in many studies
• researchers suggest this is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional healthcare
• these findings suggest that patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change

Question 6

a korean study of cultural variations

Answer 6

• mi kyoung jin et al. (2012) compared the proportions of attachment types in korea to other studies
• SS was used to assess 87 babies
• overall proportions were similar to those in most countries, with most babies being secure
• more of them classified as resistant, only 1 was avoidant
• this distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in japan
• since japan and korea have quite similar child-rearing styles, this similarity might be explained in terms of this

Question 7

conclusions based on studies of cultural variations

Answer 7

• secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal and this type is the universal norm
• research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type

Question 8

evaluation: most studies were conducted by indigenous researchers

Answer 8

• indigenous = from same cultural background as participants
• eg. grossmann et al. 1981 (german) and keiko takahashi 1986 (japanese)
• avoids researchers’ misunderstandings of the language used by participants or having difficulty communicating instructions to them
• also avoids bias because of stereotypes
• therefore, there is an excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated successfully, thus enhancing the validity of the data collected

Question 9

evaluation: not all cross-cultural attachment research has been done by indigenous psychologists

Answer 9

• gilda morelli and edward tronick (1991) were american and they studied child-rearing and patterns of attachment in the efé of zaire
• their data might have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from participants outside their own culture
• this means that the data from some countries might have been affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication

Question 10

evaluation: impact of confounding variables on findings

Answer 10

• studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews of meta-analyses
• sample characteristics: poverty, social class, age of participants can all confound results
• environmental variables: size of room, availability of interesting toys differs between studies and babies might explore more in studies conducted in small rooms
• 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

Question 11

evaluation: trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context

Answer 11

• imposed etic = when we assume an idea of technique that works in one cultural context will work in another
• in britain and US, lack of affection on reunion may indicate avoidant attachment
• in germany, such behaviour could be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity. that part of SS may not work in germany
• behaviours measured by SS may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures in meaningless

Question 12

evaluation: competing explanations

Answer 12

• cross-cultural research has found very similar attachment types in different countries
  > bowlby’s theory explain this similarity by identifying attachment as innate and universal
• van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg suggest an alternative explanation: global media represents a particular view of how parents and babies are meant to behave
  > this may override traditional cultural differences in the way children are brought up