cultural variations in attachment Flashcards
what was the aim of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis?
to study the proportions of types of attachments across countries and cultures within those countries
what was the procedure of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis?
32 strange situations from 8 different countures using 1990 children, the reults were weighed for sample size when combine for each country
what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for Britian?
75% secure
22% aviodent
3% resistant
what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for Sweden?
74% secure
22% aviodent
4% resistant
what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for japan?
68% secure
5% aviodent
27% resistant
what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for the Netherlands?
67% secure
26% aviodent
7% resistant
what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for the USA
65% secure
21% aviodent
14% resistant
what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for Israel?
64% secure
7% aviodent
29% resistant
what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for Germany?
57% secure
35% aviodent
8% resistant
what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for china?
50% secure
25% aviodent
25% resistant
summaries Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis findings
overall secure attachment was the majority but there were differences in the proportions in different countries for example the up was 75% whilst china was 50%.
who conducted the Italian study?
Simonella et al
what was the aim of Simonella et al study?
to see whether the proportions of attachments was different to those of previous studies
was was Simonella et al’s procedure?
assessed 76 1 year olds using the strange situation
what were Simonella et al’s findings?
50% secure, 36% insecure-aviodent
there was a lower rate of secure attachment then previous studies possibly due to change is social norms of mothers working
what conclusion did Simonella et al draw from his study?
cultural change has a dramatic effect on the types of attachment in a population
who conducted the Korean study?
Jin et al
what was the aim of Jin et al’s study?
to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies
what was Jin et al’s procedure?
strange situation using 87 children
what were Jin et al’s findings?
there was a very low number of insecure-avoident only 1/87, and found that the finding were very similar to those of japan
what overall conclusion can be drawn from cross-cultural replications?
attachment is universal and innate, and secure attachment is the norm, whilst cultural practices has a influence if the attachment types
Why does the observations have good internal validity?
it used a very large sample which reduces the impact of anomalous results are participant variables, however there are still methodological issues such as temperance of the infant
what about the external validity of the observations?
it was a comparison of countries not cultures as meta-analysis by Sagi found that the proportion of attachment in Tokyo is similar to western countries but rural samples had a over representation of insecure- resistant
what is imposed etic?
whether a theory/technique can be applied from one culture to another
what is a alternative explanation?
variations may be a effect of mass-media on parenting
