cultural variations in attachment

Question 1

what was the aim of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis?

Answer 1

to study the proportions of types of attachments across countries and cultures within those countries

Question 2

what was the procedure of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis?

Answer 2

32 strange situations from 8 different countures using 1990 children, the reults were weighed for sample size when combine for each country

Question 3

what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for Britian?

Answer 3

75% secure
22% aviodent
3% resistant

Question 4

what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for Sweden?

Answer 4

74% secure
22% aviodent
4% resistant

Question 5

what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for japan?

Answer 5

68% secure
5% aviodent
27% resistant

Question 6

what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for the Netherlands?

Answer 6

67% secure
26% aviodent
7% resistant

Question 7

what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for the USA

Answer 7

65% secure
21% aviodent
14% resistant

Question 8

what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for Israel?

Answer 8

64% secure
7% aviodent
29% resistant

Question 9

what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for Germany?

Answer 9

57% secure
35% aviodent
8% resistant

Question 10

what were the results Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis for china?

Answer 10

50% secure
25% aviodent
25% resistant

Question 11

summaries Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis findings

Answer 11

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%.

Question 12

who conducted the Italian study?

Answer 12

Simonella et al

Question 13

what was the aim of Simonella et al study?

Answer 13

to see whether the proportions of attachments was different to those of previous studies

Question 14

was was Simonella et al’s procedure?

Answer 14

assessed 76 1 year olds using the strange situation

Question 15

what were Simonella et al’s findings?

Answer 15

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

Question 16

what conclusion did Simonella et al draw from his study?

Answer 16

cultural change has a dramatic effect on the types of attachment in a population

Question 17

who conducted the Korean study?

Answer 17

Jin et al

Question 18

what was the aim of Jin et al’s study?

Answer 18

to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies

Question 19

what was Jin et al’s procedure?

Answer 19

strange situation using 87 children

Question 20

what were Jin et al’s findings?

Answer 20

there was a very low number of insecure-avoident only 1/87, and found that the finding were very similar to those of japan

Question 21

what overall conclusion can be drawn from cross-cultural replications?

Answer 21

attachment is universal and innate, and secure attachment is the norm, whilst cultural practices has a influence if the attachment types

Question 22

Why does the observations have good internal validity?

Answer 22

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

Question 23

what about the external validity of the observations?

Answer 23

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

Question 24

what is imposed etic?

Answer 24

whether a theory/technique can be applied from one culture to another

Question 25

what is a alternative explanation?

Answer 25

variations may be a effect of mass-media on parenting