Cultural Variations in Attachment

Question 1

Name the research method used in Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research.

Answer 1

Meta Analysis

Question 2

What type of studies did Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg use in their research?

Answer 2

Strange situation classifications.

Question 2

How many studies did Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg use in their research?

Answer 2

32

Question 3

Name the 8 different countries used in Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study.

Answer 3

UK, USA, China, Israel, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany

Question 4

The studies that Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg analysed all aimed to assess…

Answer 4

Attachment types.

Question 5

How many out of the total number of studies were from the US?

Answer 5

18

Question 6

Out of all of the studies, how many children were there all together?

Answer 6

1990

Question 7

Which was the most common attachment type from all countries overall?

Answer 7

Secure attachments

Question 7

What percentage of children were classified as securely attached in Britain?

Answer 7

75%

Question 8

What percentage of children were classified as securely attached in China?

Answer 8

50%

Question 9

For individualist countries, the percentage of insecure-resistant children was always below what number?
Whose findings match this?

Answer 9

14%
This is consistent with Ainsworth’s original findings.

Question 10

For collectivist cultures, the percentage of insecure resistant attachments were higher, above what number?
Compare this with the amount of insecure-avoidant attachments.

Answer 10

25%

Question 11

Name the researcher who studied attachment types in Italy.

Answer 11

Simonelli

Question 12

How was attachment type assessed in Simonelli’s study?

Answer 12

Assessed using the strange situation.

Question 13

How many children did Simonelli assess?
How old were the children?

Answer 13

76 children aged 12 months.

Question 14

What percentage of Simonelli’s babies were securely attached?

Answer 14

50%

Question 15

What percentage of Simonelli’s babies were insecure avoidant?

Answer 15

36%

Question 16

Why do researchers believe percentage of insecure avoidant babies is higher in Italy?

Answer 16

Mothers are more likely to use childcare services from a younger age for longer hours.

Question 17

Mi Kyoung Jin researched attachment types of babies from which country?

Answer 17

Korea

Question 18

How many babies did Mi Kyoung Jin asses?

Answer 18

87

Question 19

What was the most common attachment type in Korea?

Answer 19

Secure

Question 20

How many insecure avoidant babies were there in Korea?

Answer 20

1

Question 21

Whose findings are Mi Kyoung Jin’s most similar to?

Answer 21

Izjendoorn’s

Question 22

Explain the strength of Izjendoorns studies in the meta analysis being conducted by indigenous researchers.
What are indigenous researchers?
Name the countries that Grossman and Takahasi were from respectively.
Give examples of barriers that can be avoided by using PPTs and researchers from the same countries.
How does using indigenous researchers avoid bias between nations?
This increases the _________ of the research.

Answer 22

Indigenous psychologists are from the same cultural background as PPTs. For example, the meta analysis included research from Grossman, a German psychologist, and Takahasi, a Japanese researcher. This means that any problems in cross cultural research can be avoided, such as language barriers between researchers and PPTs. Risk of bias due to stereotypes of nations towards each other can also be avoided. This therefore increases validity of the research.

Question 23

Explain how Izjendoorn’s findings are supported by Bowlby’s research.
Say how Izjendoorn’s findings are similar.
Why did Bowlby say attachment is biological?

Answer 23

Izjendoorn’s cross cultural research has found very similar attachment types in different countries. Bowlby’s theory explains this similarity by identifying attachment as innate and universal - it’s biological. This supports why secure attachments are also the most common attachment type, as Bowlby’s theory suggests that we are meant to securely attach to our primary caregiver.

Question 24

Explain the limitation of cross cultural research having confounding variables.
What are studies not matched for between countries? - give examples of variables.
Explain how environmental variables, such as room size, can affect results. How can proximity behaviours affect attachment classification?
Therefore, what might cross cultural research not actually tell us?

Answer 24

Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta analyses. Sample characteristics such as such as poverty and class can confound results. For example, babies might explore more in studies conducted in smaller rooms with more brightly coloured toys compared to bare rooms. Another example is that less proximity seeking behaviours might be seen in larger rooms due to their size, which could lead to babies being classified as insecure avoidant when they are not. These confounding variables may mean that comparisons of studies across cultures may not tell us anything about patterns of attachment types.

Question 25

Explain the limitation that cross cultural research tries to impose one test designed for one culture onto several cultures.
What is emic and etic?
What is imposed etic and how is it seen in cross cultural research?
In Britain, what will reunion behaviours look like that indicate an insecure avoidant attachments? How does this differ to Germany?
What do avoidant attachments indicate in Germany?
What does mean about the worth of applying the strange situation across cultures?

Answer 25

Cross cultural research includes ideas of emic (uniqueness) and etic (universality). Imposed etic occurs when we assume that a technique designed for one cultural context will apply to another. An example of this is how babies respond to reunion in the strange situation. In Britain or the US, lack of affection at reunion may indicate avoidant attachments. But in German cultures, lack of affection signifies independence rather than insecurity. This means that the strange situation applies differently in other countries so findings are less useful.