Cultural variations in Attachment Flashcards
What was the aim of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research (1988)?
To assess cultural variation in the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachment types across different countries and examine variations within countries.
How many studies and children were involved in van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research?
The research meta-analysed 32 studies from 8 countries, involving 1,990 children.
What was the primary method used in van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research?
The Strange Situation procedure.
What was the most common attachment type across all countries in van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research?
Secure attachment was the most common attachment type in all countries.
What cultural differences were found in van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research?
In individualist cultures, insecure-resistant attachment was similar to Ainsworth’s original sample (<14%), but in collectivist cultures like China, Japan, and Israel, rates of insecure-resistant attachment were higher (over 25%) and insecure-avoidant attachment was lower.
What was a surprising finding from van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research regarding variations within countries?
Variations within countries were 150% greater than variations between countries, e.g., in the US, secure attachment rates ranged from 46% to 90% in different studies.
What did Alessandra Simonelli et al.’s study (2014) in Italy find about attachment types?
In Italy, 50% of babies were secure, and 36% were insecure-avoidant. This is lower than typical secure attachment rates, possibly due to more mothers working long hours and using professional childcare.
What was the main finding in Mi Kyoung Jin et al.’s study (2012) in Korea?
Most babies in Korea were securely attached, but a higher proportion were insecure-resistant, with only one baby being insecure-avoidant. This pattern resembled the attachment types found in Japan, possibly due to similar child-rearing practices.
What do these studies suggest about patterns of attachment?
Patterns of attachment are not static; they vary in response to cultural changes and child-rearing practices.
What conclusion can be drawn from van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research about attachment?
Secure attachment is a universal norm across cultures, supporting Bowlby’s theory that attachment is innate, but cultural practices influence the specific attachment type distributions.
strength of CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
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 Uzendoorn 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.
limitation (1) of CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
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 (2) of CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
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.
