Attchment - Cultural Variations Flashcards
What did van ijzendoorn and Kroonen Berry 1988 conduct a study for
To look at projections of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachments across countries
Differences within the same countries to get idea of variation within a culture
What was the procure used in van ijzendoorn and Kronen Burg
Located 32 studies of attachment
The ss had been used to investigate proportion of infants with different attachment types.
Studies conducted in 8 countries
All studies yielded results for 1990 children
Studies meta analysed , combined and weighted for sample size
What were the findings of van ijzendoorn and kroonenbergs study
Secure attachment was the most common
Proportion varied from 70% to 50.5% in other countries eg china
Insecure resistant overall the least common type
Proportions ranged from 3% in Britain to 30% in Israel
Insecure avoidant most common in Germany , least in japan
Variation between results of studies within the same country was 150% greater than those between counties
Give an example which showed more variation within cultures
In USA one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%
What do results from all cultural variation studies show about Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Bowlbys monotropic theory is true
Theorised secure attachment is biological and innate.
If innate most people would be born with it and this is why it is the most common
Explain simonella et als study
To see if proportion of babies of attachment types matched those of previous studies
Italy
Assessed 76 12 month olds using the SS
Found 50% were secure and 36% insecure avoidant
Lower rate of secure attachment than that is found in many studies
Increasing numbers of mothers of young children work long hours or use professional childcare
Culture changes have big impact on attachment types
Explain Jin et al study
To compare proportion of attachment types in Korea to other studies
The ss used to asses 87 children
Overall proportion of secure and insecure babies was similar to those in most countries.
Most of them secure
More of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant
Only 1 avoidant
Similar distribution in Japan in van ijzendoorn study
They have similar child rearing styles similarity can be due to this
What is a strength of culture variation studies
Large sample
Strength of combining results of attachment studies is that large sample produced
Eg in van ijzendoorn’s meta analysis combined data from 2000 babies. Even studies like those of simonella et al and Jin et al had large comparison groups from previous research.
Large samples increase internal validity by reducing impact of anomalous results and increase external validity as results can be more representative of population
What is a limitation of culture variation studies (unrepresentative of culture)
Samples tend to be unrepresentative of culture
Eg van ijzendoorn and kroonenburgs study claimed to study cultural variation however comparisons were just between countries not cultures
This is a concern as there are many cultures within a country each with different child rearing practices so proportion of attachment types will be different.
Eg USA one study found 90% securely attached infants whilst another sample found only 46%
This shows that van ijzendoorn and kroonen burgs study did not measure what they intended as comparison between countries may have little meaning, decreasing validity
What is a limitation of cultural variations (ethnocentric )
Comparing cultures using the strange situation may be ethnocentric
For eg the SS designed by ainsworth an American researcher based on British theory by Bowlby.
In ss typically lack of separation anxiety -> insecure avoidant attachment
In Germany this behaviour classed as independence rather than avoidance. Not insecurity in that culture context
Questions application of Anglo-American theories and assessments to other cultures. Impose Etic
Use of SS in cultural variations lack validity
