Cultural Variations In Attachment

Question 1

What are the two cultural variations in attachment key studies we need to know?

Answer 1

• key study 1: Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta-analysis of cultural variations
• key study 2: Simonella et al (2014) an Italian perspective

Question 2

What are the two main types of culture?

Answer 2

• individualist = value independence with each working to their own individualist goals e.g. USA and Europe (Western countries)
• collectivist= value Cooperation with each working towards the family or group goals e.g. Japan and Israel (Eastern countries)

Question 3

What was the aim of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis of cultural variations?

Answer 3

To investigate the types of attachment across countries and to see how the three main attachment styles applied (secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant) including the variations of these within the same countries to gain an insight into variations within a culture

Question 4

What was the procedure of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis of cultural variations?

Answer 4

• The researchers located 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation had been used- these 32 were conducted in 8 countries; 15 were in the USA
• overall the 32 studies yielded results for 1990 children and the data from these 32 studies were meta-analysed

Question 5

What were the findings and conclusions of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis of cultural variations?

Answer 5

1- secure attachment was the most common in all cultures- however the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China

2- in collectivist cultures insecure-resistant attachment was much more common than in individualistic cultures- in individualistic cultures, rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth’s original sample but this was not true for the collectivist samples from China, Japan and Israel where rates were all above 25% = suggests there were cultural differences in the distribution of insecure attachment

3- overall, variations within countries was greater than variations between countries. In the USA for example, one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%

Question 6

What was the aim of Simonella et al’s (2014) study?

Answer 6

To investigate whether attachment typesproportions in Italy had changed over time

Question 7

What was the procedure of Simonella et al’s (2014) study?

Answer 7

• Assessed over 70 12 month old babies using the strange situation to see whether the proportion of attachment types still matched previous studies in Italy
• the sample was very varied- mothers were recruited from a wider research project on parenthood transition and were reasonably varied in their education levels e.g. over 50% university degree and 2% didn’t finish school along with their professions e.g. almost 50% employed and less than 40% did not work or worked part-time

Question 8

What were the findings of Simonella et al’s 2014 study?

Answer 8

• lower rates of secure attachment- found that 50% were secure with 36% insecure-avoidant. This was a lower rate of secure attachment found in previous studies
• researchers suggested that this was due to the increasing numbers of mothers working long hours and using professional childcare
• so findings suggested that cultural changes can make dramatic differences in the patterns of attachment types

Question 9

What are the evaluation points for cultural variations in attachment?

Answer 9

✅ One strength of combining results of attachment studies carried out in different countries is that you can end up with very large samples- for example in the Van ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta-analysis there was a total of nearly 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures- this overall sample size is a strength because large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results or very unusual participants

❌ samples used may not be representative of the cultures they are taken from- the meta-analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg claims to be a study on cultural variations but comparisons they made are between countries not cultures. One sample might for example, over-represent people living in poverty, and the stress of this might affect the caregiver and thus caregiver-infant interaction ultimately affecting the quality of attachment. This means that comparisons between countries may have little meaning- the particular cultural characteristics (and so caregiving styles) of the sample need to be specified

❌ Using the strange situation method of assessing attachment types may be biased towards American/ British cultural child-rearing practices. The Strange Situation was designed by Mary Ainsworth, an American researcher based on a British theory (Bowlby) and so there is question over whether these theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures due to the imposed etic this would create- an example of this may be the idea that a lack of separation anxiety and a lack of pleasure on reunion indicates a secure attachment. But in Germany, this behaviour might be seen as independence than avoidance and not a sign of insecurity

❌ one problem of using the strange situation method of assessing attachment types is that temperament may be a confounding variable- Ainsworth assumed that the main influence on separation and stranger anxiety was the quality of the attachment, but it may be possible that temperament (genetically influenced personality of the child) is a more important influence on child behaviour in the strange situation. This creates an issue for research on cultural variations in attachment because studies that use the strange situation may actually be measuring genetic differences in temperament between cultures than the relationship with the primary attachment figure

❌ there is an alternative explanation for the similarities found between cultures- Bowlby’s explanation for cultural similarities was that they are due to the fact that attachment is innate and universal and thus produces the same behaviour all over the world. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg proposed an alternative possibility that suggested that small cross-cultural differences may reflect the effects of the mass media. This explanation suggests that the number of books and TV programmes that advocate similar notions of parenting are disseminated across countries; hence similarities in child-rearing practices become more common