Cultural Variations In Attachment Flashcards
Who studied cultural variations in attachment?
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
What did they look at?
Looked at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments in a range of countries as well as the differences within the same countries.
What was their procedure?
Carried out a meta-analysis of 32 studies (involving 1990 children) from 8 different countries where the strange situation had been used to investigate the proportions of infants with different attachment types.
What did they find?
-Secure (65%-most common overall). Great Britain had highest % at 75%, and China had the lowest % at 50%.
-Insecure-resistant(14%-least common overall). Great Britain had lowest % at 3%, and Israel had the highest % at 29%
-Insecure-avoidant (21%- 2nd most common overall) West Germany had highest % at 35% and Japan had the lowest % at 5%.
• Variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than those between countries e.g. in the USA one study found 46% securely attached compared to another which found 90%.
What were their conclusions?
There is a wide variation between the proportions of attachment types in different cultures. Secure attachment is most common universally, but western countries tend to show more insecure-avoidant and eastern countries tend to show more insecure-resistant.
Who were the two other individuals who conducted studies of cultural variation?
Simonella et al (2014) and Jin et al (2012)
What was Simonella’s procedure?
Assessed 76 12-month olds using the strange situation in Italy to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types was reliable.
What did Simonella find?
50% were secure which was lower rate of secure attachment than found in many studies (36% insecure-avoidant and 14% insecure-resistant)
However these results were not reliable as their findings for the percentages of attachment types were not similar/inconsistent with previous studies.
What did Simonella conclude?
Cultural changes can have a large effect on changes in rates of attachment types may be due to changes in child rearing practices such as increasing numbers of mothers of very young children working long hours and use professional childcare.
What was Jin’s procedure?
The strange situation was used to assess 87 children in Korea to compare the proportions of attachment types to other studies.
What did Jin find?
Most infants were secure and overall proportions of insecure and secure babies was similar to those in most countries. More of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only one child was avoidant.
What did Jin conclude?
This distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan which could be explained by the fact that Japan and Korea have similar child rearing styles.
State an overall conclusion from cultural variations.
• Secure attachment is the universal norm supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal.
• Cultural practices have an influence on attachment type due to the variations of attachment types seen.
Evaluation point 1:
(+) Large samples
Meta-analysis allow for a very large sample (e.g. 1990 children and their attachment figure in Van Ijzendoorn). A larger sample size is a strength as it means we are more likely to be able to generalise our findings as the sample is more representative of infants and caregivers (target population).
Evaluation point 2:
(-) Sample tends to be unrepresentative of culture
Comparisons made are between countries, not cultures. Within any country there are many different cultures, with different child-rearing styles. e.g. an analysis found that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo were similar to the Western studies, whereas a more rural setting in Japan had an over-representation of insecure-resistant individuals. This is a weakness as countries are not the same as cultures. These are studies on countries and so therefore findings may tell is very little about cultural variation as cultures have not been studied.
Evaluation point 3:
(-) Biased methodology
The strange situation was developed by an American researcher based on British theory (Bowlby) and there is a question over whether Anglo-American theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures. Trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture to another is known as imposed etic and can lead to invalid findings and/or conclusions e.g. according to Ainsworth’s findings a lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion indicate an insecure attachment. However, in Germany, this behaviour might be seen more as independence than avoidance and hence not a sign of insecurity within that cultural context.
Evaluation point 4:
(-)Nature or nurture?
Research has found that attachment does not vary much throughout the world which seems to support Bowlby’s idea that attachment was innate and universal. However, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg suggest that attachment similarities are due to the media and how they project similar images worldwide of attachment. This is a weakness as we cannot be sure if the lack of variation are due to biology (nature) or environment (nurture). Therefore, we cannot be sure what factors influence the development of attachment the most.
Evaluation point 5:
(-) The strange situation lacks validity
If Kagan (1986) is correct that the Strange Situation is measuring temperament and not attachment this suggests that all the test is actually measuring is anxiety. Therefore we cannot be sure of the role that culture/if cultural variations are done biology or down to the environment.
