Cultural variations in attachment Flashcards
Cultural variations in attachment meaning
the differing attachments between cultures
Van Ijzendoorn and Krooenberg (1988):
Van Ijzendoorn and Krooenberg conducted a meta-analysis to look at cultural variations in attachment. The aim of their study was to look at the proportions of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachment across a range of countries and within cultures. Van Ijzendoorn and Krooenberg located 32 studies where Ainsworth’s strange situation was used. The studies were conducted in 8 countries, 18 of which were in the USA. The overall sample size was 1990 children and the data for the 32 studies was meta-analysed. They found that secure attachment is the most common attachment type across all cultures. They also found that avoidant attachments were most commonly found in Western Germany than any other western culture. Resistant attachments were most commonly found in Japan. They also found that there are differences within cultures as one of the Japanese studies showed no avoidant attachment whereas a second Japanese study found around 20%. This demonstrates the meta-analysis is an oversimplification
Tronick et al
Tronick et al studied an African tribe who lived in
extended family groups. The infants were looked after and even breastfed by different women, but usually slept with their own birth mother at night. The infants, at 6 months, still showed one primary attachment. This shows that there is similarities between cultures.
what did research into cultural variations in attachment conclude
This concludes that secure attachment types seem to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal. However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.
Evaluation of cultural variations in attachment (brief)
weakness - culturally biased
weakness - comparing countries not cultures
weakness - biased sample HOWEVER large overall sample size
weaknesses of cultural variations in attachment
Van Ijzendoorn and Krooenberg’s results might be culturally biased. The strange situation methodology used was developed in America, which means it might be ethnocentric, as Ainsworth’s strange situation may be more suitable for use solely within Western cultures as it reflects their norms and values. For example, the belief that attachment is related to anxiety about separation may not be the case in other cultures e.g. Japan. Using a methodology beyond the sample for which it was designed is referred to as an imposed etic. This means that attachment behaviours mean different things for different cultures, therefore the results may not be valid when used with samples from non-western cultures.
Van Ijzendoorn and Krooenberg may have been comparing countries and not cultures. For example, one Japanese study found 20% of children were insecure-avoidant whereas another found no insecure-avoidant children. Within each country there may be many different subcultures, each with their own unique ways of rearing children. The researchers noted that variance within countries was far greater than between countries. Therefore, it stands to reason that they did, in fact, collect data on subcultures within the countries they investigated rather than the whole nation.
biased sample. 27/32 of the studies in their meta-analysis were carried out in individualistic cultures. Therefore, the results are biased towards individualistic culture norms and values so we cannot accurately generalise the results to collectivist cultures, thus lowering the population validity of the findings. HOWEVER, the overall sample size of over 1900 infants is a strength as much research in this area uses comparatively smaller numbers.
