Cultural variations in attachment

Question 1

Cultural variations in attachment key study

Person

Answer 1

van Ikzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

Question 2

Cultural variations in attachment key study

Aim

Answer 2

└van Ikzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

└proportions of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachments across countries/within countries + culture

Question 3

Cultural variations in attachment key study

Procedure and findings

Answer 3

Procedure
└32 studies of strange situation- 8 countries – 15=USA
└1990 children
└meta analysis

Findings
└secure attachment most common- 75% in Britain- 50% in china
└insecure resistant least common- 3% in Britain- 30% in Israel
└insecure avoidant most common in Germany and least common in japan
└150% greater difference between countries

Question 4

Other studies of cultural variations

Summary

Answer 4

Italian study
└Simonella et al (2014)

Korean study
└Jin et al (2012)

Question 5

Italian study

Answer 5

└Simonella et al (2014)
└76 12 month olds 
└50% secure
└36% sinecure avoidant 
  └due to more working mothers

Question 6

Korean study

Answer 6

└Jin et al (2012)
└87 children
└similar to japan

Question 7

Cultural variations in attachment

Conclusions

Answer 7

└secure= norm
└=innate and universal
└shows cultures influence

Question 8

Cultural variations in attachment

Strengths

Answer 8

Large samples
└strength of combining results of attachment studies from different countries is large sample
└E.g. van Ikzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta analysis had 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures
└Simonella et al and Jin et al- own sample sizes were smaller
└but had large comparison groups from previous research
└increase internal validity by decreasing impact of anomalous results

Question 9

Cultural variations in attachment
Limitations
Summary

Answer 9

Poor evidence- Goldfarb 1955, Bowlby
Counter evidence - Hilda Lewis (1954)
Privation vs. deprivation- Michael Rutter (1981)
Sensitive period> critical period - Koluchova (1976)

Question 10

Cultural variations in attachment
Limitations
Poor evidence

Answer 10

└Bowlby used multiple sources of evidence for maternal deprivation
└studies of WW2 orphans (Goldfarb 1955), those growing up in poor quality orphanages and 44 thieves study
└bad evidence
└war orphans traumatised and had poor after care- may have caused bad development rather than separation
└children growing up from birth in poor quality institutions deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care
└44 thieves study bias as bowlby himself carried out the assessments and interviews knowing what he hoped to find

Question 11

Cultural variations in attachment
Limitations
Counter evidence

Answer 11

└Hilda Lewis (1954)
└partially replicated 44 thieves study on a larger scale- 500 young people
└results: history of early prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships
└other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation

Question 12

Cultural variations in attachment
Limitations
Privation vs. deprivation

Answer 12

└Michael Rutter (1981)
└deprivation= loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed
└privation= failure to form any attachment in the first place
└claimed long term damage more likely to be as result of privation

Question 13

Cultural variations in attachment
Limitations
Sensitive period> critical period

Answer 13

└damage not inevitable- ok if child have good aftercare

└Koluchova (1976)- twin boys locked in cupboard for 16 years however recovered fully