Attachment– Cultural Variations

Question 1

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) aim:

Answer 1

Looked at differences in a country for variations in culture

Question 2

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) procedure:

Answer 2

32 studies (1,990 children ) where strange situation was used to see range of infants with different attachment Styles
15/32 studies were done in USA
All the data was put in a meta analysis to be compared

Question 3

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) findings:

Answer 3

Wide variation of proportion of attachment types
Security attachment was the most common classification (75% of UK, 50% of China)
Insecure resistance was least common classification (3% of UK, 30% of Israel)
Insecure avoidant was mainly found in Germany
→ they found that studies in the same country had a greater range of attachment types than between countries

Question 4

Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001)

Answer 4

Found that intra-cultural variations in attachment were greater than intercultural variations in Japan (urban areas had Western attachment Styles but rural areas had more insecure resistant types)
↓
Conclusion: generalizing attachment patterns to a country is misleading

Question 5

Tronwick et al (1992)

Answer 5

Studied infants in African societies that were breastfed by multiple women but slept with mother. Despite this they showed a primary attachment to their mother

Question 6

Grossman and Grossman (1991)

Answer 6

Studied attachment style in German infants and found that many infants had insecure avoidant attachment type as German child rearing encourages independence – this suggests that insecure voidant attachment is not insecurity but independence

Question 7

Takahashi (1990)

Answer 7

Studied Japanese infants and found that there was no insecure avoiding attachments and there were higher levels of insecure system attachments then in western countries

Question 8

Simonella (2014)

Answer 8

Did a study on 76 12 months olds in Italy using strange situation. Found that 50% were securely attached and 36% were insecure avoidant – this is because many mothers in Italy work long hours and use professional childcare

Question 9

Jin et al (2012)

Answer 9

87 children were assessed in Korea using strange situation. Most of the insecurely attached kids were insecure resistant and only one was insecure avoidant

Question 10

Conclusion of cultural variations in attachment

Answer 10

Attachment is innate (bowlby)
Culture has an influence
Individualistic cultures promotes personal independence and competition
Collectivist cultures promote interdependence between people and family / work goals

Question 11

Strengths of cultural variations in attachment

Answer 11

By combining all the cultural studies you have very large sample – increases the validity and reduces anomalous results
HOWEVER:
Only 5 of these studies came from collectivist cultures

Question 12

Limitations of cultural variations in attachment

Answer 12

The meta-analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) was of countries not cultures
A sample could over represent people in poverty
Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found differences within countries so therefore countries cannot be compared
Strange situations was designed by an American (ainsworth) and based on a British person’s (bowlby) theories so it doesn’t fit with studies like Grossman and Grossman (1990)
Kagan (1986) suggested that attachment type is more related to temperament than the relationship
Van Ijzendoorn believed that attachment is not innate but a result of mass media