cultural variations in attachment- Van Ijzendoorn

Question 1

AO1: Van Ijzendoorn meta analysis

Answer 1

aim: to investigate cultural difference in attachment types

procedure: meta analysis (combining finding from multiple studies and making a conclusion) of 32 studies of 2000 versions of the strange situation in 8 different countries. Looking for inter-cultural (between) and intra-cultural (within) differences.

Findings: secure attachment is the most common type in all countries. Japan is collectivist culture so 2nd most common type is resistant insecure. Germany is an individualistic culture (parents seek independence) so insecure avoidant is 2nd most common type. inter-cultural differences were small but there was a lot of intra-cultural differences.

Conclusion: supports the idea that secure attachment is best for healthy social and emotional development. supports idea that attachment is innate and biological process (bowlby)

Question 2

AO1: Effe Tribe- Africa

Answer 2

live in extended family groups where infants are looked after and breastfed by other women. The infants sleep with their own mothers and still showed a preference for a primary attachment figure at 6 months, this supports Ijzendoorn findings that secure attachment is the most common globally. Supports idea that infants choose comfort over food.

Question 3

AO1: cultural differences- Grossman & Grossman

Answer 3

in german culture, they favour independence from a young age, as a result, infants appear to be insecurely attached in the strange situation since they do not seek proximity to their mothers or joy upon reunion.

Question 4

AO3: strength- high population validity

limitation- sample was biased

Answer 4

P: strength of using meta analysis is that the research has high population validity
E/E: this is because they had a large sample size from a number of different countries
L: this means the research is more representative and can be generalised to a large number of people
HOWEVER,
their sample was biased as majority of the studies were carried out in individualistic cultures. Therefore, the results are biased towards individualistic culture norms and so the results can’t be generalised to collectivist cultures, lowering the population validity.

Question 5

AO3: limitation- other explanations aren’t considered

strength- Van Ijzendoorn counters this argument

Answer 5

P: there is alternate explanations for universal attachment
E/E: according to Bowlby, attachment is an innate mechanism which aids survival of infants. It is a biologically driven process and is not modified by the culture in which one is brought up in
L: shows there is other explanations for the research into cultural variations in attachment
HOWEVER,
Van Ijzendoorn suggest that some of the similarities seen cross-culturally could be due to mass exposure to similar media forums.

Question 6

AO3: limitation- issues of validity

Answer 6

P: issues of validity when using the strange situation
E: it is designed by americans and related to the cultural assumptions of them.
E: trying to apply a technique designed for one culture to another culture is known as imposed etic. e.g. in individualistic cultures ‘willingness to explore’ is seen as secure attachment, however in Japanese (collectivist) cultures dependence would be seen as a secure attachment. According to western criteria that infant would be seen as insecurely attached.

Question 7

AO3: limitation- comparing countries and not cultures

Answer 7

P: an issue of Van Izjendoorns research is that they compared countries not cultures.
E/E: they compares Great Britain with Israel but within each country there is different sub cultures. The researcher noted that the variance within the countries was far greater than between the countries