Cultural Variations In Attachment

Question 1

Studies of cultural variations - van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg’s

Answer 1

Procedure:
- located 32 studies of A where the S.S was investigated, were conducted in 8 different countries - 15 in USA
- results for 1,990 children, data was meta-analysed {results were combined and analysed together}

Findings:
- in all countries secure A was the most common classification, proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China.
- in individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant A, similar to to Ainsworth O.G sample - not true for collectivist samples from China + Japan, Israel had rates above 25%
- variations between results within the same country were actually 150% greater than between countries

Question 2

Italian study + Korean study -> conclusions

Answer 2

Simonelli et al - see whether the proportion of babies of different A types still match those found in previous
- assessed 76 babies, 12 moths old, using S.S - found 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant
- lower rate of secure A and higher rate of insecure-avoidant
- suggest cas increasing numbers of mothers work long hours and use professional childcare

Kyoung Jin et al - compared the proportions of A types in Korea to other study’s
- S.S used to assess 87 babies, overall proportion of insecure + secure babies similar to in other countries, with most babies secure.
- more of those classified as insecurely A were resistant and 1 avoidant
- similar to results in Japan - similar child rearing styles

Conclusion - secure A is norm in a wide range of cultures supporting B idea that A is innate + universal

Question 3

Evaluate cultural variations in attachment - strengths

Answer 3

STRENGTHS:
Studies conducted by indigenous psychologists {from same cultural background as the pts}
- problems can be avoided e.g. misunderstanding the language used by pts / difficulty communication or instructing them. {cross-cultural research issues}
- good chance that the researchers + pts communicated successfully, increases the validity of data
COUNTERPOINT:
Not true for all cross-cultural A research; Tronik was outsider from America + studied child rearing patterns of A
- data affected by difficulties gathering data from pts
May have been affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication

Question 4

Limitations

Answer 4

LIMITATION:
Confounding variables; poverty, social class, urban/rural make up, age in different countries
- env variables may differ studies e.g. the size of the room, toys in there
… less visible proximity-seeking cas of room size might make a child more likely to be avoidant
- might not tell us everything about cross-cultural patters in A

LIMITATION:
Trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context on another
- includes ideas of emic (cultural uniqueness) and etic (cross-culturally universality).
- imposed etic occurs when we impose an idea that works in one cultural context to another
E.g. in Britain lack of affection on reunions may indicate avoidant A, but in Germany that beh is more likely independence