Cultural Variations In Attachment Flashcards
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenbergs research
Marinus van Izendoorn and Pieter Kroonenberg (1988) 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.
Procedure -The researchers located 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types. These were conducted in eight countries - 15 were in the US. Overall the studies yielded results for 1,990 children. The data for these 32 studies was meta-analysed. This means that the results of the studies were combined and analysed together, weighting each study for its sample size.
Findings -The findings are shown in the graph below left. There was wide variation 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.
In individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth’s original sample (all under 14%) but this was not true for the collectivist samples from China, Japan and Israel where rates were above 25% (and where rates of insecure-avoidant attachment were reduced).
An interesting finding was that variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries. In the US, for example, one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%.
Other studies of cultural variations
An Italian study Alessandra Simonelli et al. (2014) conducted a study in Italy to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in previous studies. The researchers assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using the Strange Situation.
They found 50% were secure, with 36% insecure-avoidant. This is a lower rate of secure attachment and higher rate of insecure-avoidant attachment than has been found in many studies. The researchers suggest this is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare.
These findings suggest that patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change.
A Korean study Mi Kyoung Jin et al. (2012) conducted a study to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies. The Strange Situation was used to assess 87 babies.
The overall proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to those in most countries, with most babies being secure. However, more of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only one baby was avoidant. This distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan (van Izendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988).
Since Japan and Korea have quite similar child-rearing styles this similarity might be explained in terms of child-rearing style.
Conclusions
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.
However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.
Strength-Indigenous research
One strength of the research on the facing page is that most of the studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists.
Indigenous psychologists are those from the same cultural background as the participants. For example, van lJzendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team (Grossmann et al. 1981) and Keiko Takahashi (1986) who is Japanese. This kind of research means that many of the potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided, such as researchers’ misunderstandings of the language used by participants or having difficulty communicating instructions to them. Difficulties can also include bias because of one nation’s stereotypes of another.
This means there is an excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated successfully - enhancing the validity of the data collected.
Counterpoint -However this has not been true of all cross-cultural attachment research. For example Gilda Morelli and Edward Tronick (1991) were outsiders from America when 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.
Limitation- confounding variables
One limitation of cross-cultural research, including meta-analyses of patterns of attachment types, is the impact of confounding variables on findings.
Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses. Sample characteristics such as poverty, social class and urban/rural make-up can confound results as can the age of participants studied in different countries. Environmental variables might also differ between studies and confound results. For example the size of the room and the availability 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 be classified as avoidant.
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.
Limitation- imposed etic
A further limitation of cross-cultural research is in trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context.
Cross-cultural psychology includes the ideas of emic (cultural uniqueness) and etic (cross-cultural universality). 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 use of babies’ response to reunion with the caregiver in the Strange Situation. In Britain and the US, lack of affection on reunion may indicate an 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 Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures is
meaningless.
