cultural variations in attachment Flashcards
name the 2 types of culture
- individualist
- collectivist
what’s meant by individualist culture
stress needs of individual over group
what’s meant by collectivist culture
based on valuing needs of group/community over individual
list examples of individualist cultures
eg. USA, UK, germany, australia
list examples of collectivist cultures
eg. japan, china, india
name those who conducted the main study for cultural variations in attachment
van Ijzendoorn & kroonenberg
aim of main study
investigate cultural differences in attachment types
method of main study
- large scale meta-analysis
- analysed results of 32 separate studies in 8 countries (used ainsworth’s strange situation)
- 8 countries = GB, sweden, japan, netherlands, US, israel, germany & china
- total = 1990 babies were studied
findings of main study
- secure attachment most common in all countries
- individualist cultures = insecure-resistant attachment rates similar to ainsworth’s original sample (under 14%)
- collectivist samples (china, japan & israel) = insecure-resistant rates above 25%
- germany had highest % of insecure-avoidant = ~34%
- israel had highest % of insecure-resistant= ~30%
- secure for GB = 75% compared to 50% in china
- insecure-resistant = 3% for GB & 30% for israel
- GB approx. = 75% secure, 3% resistant & 22% avoidant
reason for GB results
(approx. = 75% secure, 3% resistant & 22% avoidant)
- individualist culture = encourage independence/exploration
- many in day care & not used to strangers = secure & separation behaviour
reason for japan results
(approx. = 69% secure, 5% avoidant & 26% resistant)
- collectivist culture
- rarely left by mother so distress shown if mum leaves
- distress/upset shown with stranger likely due to mothers absence
reason for germany results
(approx. = 57% secure, 34% avoidant & 9% resistant)
- grossman et. al (1985) says german parents seek independent & non-clingy children = core values
conclusion of main study
- overall consistency in secure attachment types leads to conclusion that there may be universal (innate) characteristics underpinning infant/caregiver interactions
- however, significant variations of insecure attachments show universality is limited & implications include linking of variation in attachment to child-rearing practices & environmental factors
describe an interesting finding of main study
variations between results of studies within same country were 150% greater than those between countries eg. in US, 1 study found 46% secure attached compared to 1 sample as high as 90%
name 2 other studies of cultural variation
italian = simonelli et al. (2014)
korean = jin et al. (2012)
who conducted the italian study
simonelli et. al (2014)
aim of italian study
see whether proportions of babies of different attachment types are same as previous studies
procedure of italian study
- conducted in italy 2014
- used 76 12-month old babies
- used ainsworths strange situation
findings of italian study
- 50% secure (lower)
- 36% insecure-avoidant (higher)
- suggests mothers work long hours & use professional childcare
conclusions of italian study
patterns of attachment types aren’t static but vary in line with cultural change
who conducted the korean study
jin et al. (2012)
aim of korean study
compare proportions of attachment types in korea to other studies
procedure/method of korean study
- 87 children
- used ainsworths strange situation
findings of korean study
- proportions of secure & insecure broadly similar to those in most countries
- most babies secure
- more of those classed as insecure were insecure-resistant
- one baby was avoidant
- results similar to japan in van ijzendoorn & kroonenberg (1988)
conclusion of korean study
similar child rearing style in japan & korea could of caused similar results
overall conclusion
secure attachment is norm in wide range of cultures which supports bowlbys idea that attachment is innate & universal
however, research clearly shows cultural practices have influence on attachment type
AO3
+)
P: majority of studies were conducted using indigenous psychologists
E: eg. van ijzendoorn & kroonenberg included research by a german team (grossman et al 1981) & a japanese team (keiko takahashi 1986). this type of research allows many of potential problems in cross-cultural research to be avoided - eg. researchers misunderstanding language used by participants, bias due to a nations stereotype of another
T: thus, there’s an good chance the researchers/participants communicated successfully which enhances data’s validity
COUNTERPOINT
-)
P: not true of all cross-cultural research
E: eg. morelli & tronick (1991) were outsiders from america when they studied child-rearing & patterns of attachment in efe of zaire. their data may have been affected by difficulties in gathering participants data outside own culture
T: means data from some countries may’ve been affected by bias & difficulty with cross-cultural contamination
-)
P: impact of confounding variables
E: studies conducted within different countries don’t usually match for methodology when compared in meta-analyses. sample characteristics (eg. poverty), social class & urban/rural make up can confound results alongside age of participants studied. environmental variables may also differ & confound results - eg. size of room & availability of interesting toys (babies may explore more in smaller rooms with lots of toys). also, less visible proximity-seeking due to room size may make a child appear avoidant
T: this means that looking at attachment behaviour in non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment
-)
P: imposing a test designed for western culture onto another one
E: cross-cultural psychology includes idea of emic & etic. imposed etic occurs when it’s assumed an idea/technique that works in 1 cultural context will work in another - eg. in attachment research when the babies response to reunion is observed in the strange situation. in britian & the US, lack of reunion may indicate avoidance but in germany, it may be interpreted as independence not insecurity - thus, part of strange situation may not work in germany
T: this means that behaviour measured by the strange situation may not have same meanings in different cultural contexts & comparing them across cultures is meaningless
emic v. etic
emic = cultural uniqueness
etic = cross-cultural universality
