Van Ijzendoorn and Koonberg classic study\

Question 1

what were 2 aims

Answer 1

-to investigate any pattern in attachment types (A,B,C) across 8 cultures
-to see whether there are variations within and differences between cultures

Question 2

sample

Answer 2

32 strange situation studies from 8 cultures
1990 children total

Question 3

procedure

Answer 3

-meta analysis of strange situation from 32 studies
-all children under 2 ,none with special educational disabilities, all mothers and babies, only used studies which included the 3 types of attachment
-investigate attachment types between and within cultures
-observed only mother and baby(not caregivers or dads)
-infants were then classified into attachment groups

Question 4

give 4 results of the study

Answer 4

-in all cultures secure was the most common attachment type
-great Britain had highest type b secure attachment at 75%
-avoidant attachment was most common in germany at 35.3%
-isreal had highest levels of resistant attachment at 28.8%

Question 5

Conclusion

Answer 5

Attachment is both nature and nurture as all children attached and most were secure this suggests an innate biological attachment due to dna or hormones however levels o different attachments differed cross culturally suggesting parenting(nurture)also affects attachment.

Question 6

strengths of study

Answer 6

-large sample 1990 children=rep=generalisable
-uses 8 cultures =less ethnocentric=gen
-used same standardised strange situation including the 3 types of attachments=reliable
-evs were eliminated e.g children with educational needs eliminated to ensure results are comparable =makes it more valid to see how culture affects attachment
-cross cultural is useful as we can find out if behaviour is caused by nurture or nature this can influence how we parent
-ethical as secondary data is used so researchers didnt actually cause any harm directly

Question 7

weaknesses of study

Answer 7

-18/32 studies used were from usa so results are disproportionately represented by americans mostly individualistic cultures used=still ethnocentric=not gen
-only looks at relationship between mother and baby so cant be applied to dads or caregivers
-other types of attachment were not accounted for main and solomon found a 4th type which was not included making results reductionist and less valid
-publication bias because only certain studies about attachment are posted which damages validity of results as meta-analysis doesn’t include all possible results so is biased