attachment -> cultural variations in attachment

Question 1

What is the issue with attachment studies focusing on genetic factors such as Bowlby?

Answer 1

It suggests that attachment is experienced the same by infants of every culture all over the world
- However, the type of attachment formed may vary between societies and cultures depending on the child rearing techniques seen as most desirable within that community

Question 2

Who did research into cross cultural variations in attachment?

Answer 2

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

Question 3

What was the purpose of their investigation?

Answer 3

To look at proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries
- They also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture

Question 4

What was the procedure of Ijenzdoorn et.al’s investigation?

Answer 4

• Conducted a meta-analysis combining the findings from 32 studies from 8 different countries that had used Ainsworth’s Strange Situation
• Over 2000 babies and their primary caregivers were studied
  -> The results of over 1990 infants were included in the analysis

Question 5

What were the findings of Ijzendoorn et.al’s study?

Answer 5

1) Secure attachment was the most common type of attachment in all the cultures examined with the proportion varying from 75% in Britain to 50% in China
2) Japan and Israel (collectivist cultures) showed higher levels of insecure-resistant attachment (above 25%) in comparison to other cultures
-> Insecure-resistant was the least common attachment type although proportions ranged from 3% in Britain to around 30% in Israel
3) Found that variation within cultures was 150% greater than those between countries

Question 6

What are the conclusions of Ijzendoorn et.al’s findings?

Answer 6

Since the global trend seems to reflect the US norm of secure attachment being the most common, it adds weight to the argument that secure attachment is the optimal attachment type for healthy development

Question 7

What is the explanation of cross cultural differences in Israel?

Answer 7

• Israeli children were reared in a Kibbutz (collective community) so were used to being separated from their mother
• As a result, did not show anxiety when the mother leaves
• However, not used to strangers so get distressed when left alone with the stranger, explaining high percentage of resistant behaviour

Question 8

What is the explanation of German cultural differences?

Answer 8

• The German study highlights a high percentage of avoidant behaviour
• Grossmann et. al (1985) found that German parents seek ‘independent, non-clingy infants who do not make demands on parents, but obey their commands’

Question 9

What is the explanation of Japanese cultural differences?

Answer 9

• Japanese children are very rarely left alone by their mother
• Distress shown when she leaves probably more due to shock than insecure attachment
• The distress they show when left alone with the stranger is also more likely to be due to absence of the mother

Question 10

What other studies of cultural variations are there?

Answer 10

• An Italian study by Simonella et.al (2014)
• A Korean study conducted by Jin et.al (2012)

Question 11

What did the Italian study by Simonella et.al aim to research?

Answer 11

Conducted to see whether the proportion of babies of different attachment types still matched those found in previous studies

Question 12

What did the Italian study by Simonella et.al research?

Answer 12

1) Researchers assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using the Strange Situation
2) Found that 50% were secure, with 36% insecure avoidant
-> lower rate of secure attachment and higher rate of insecure avoidant than has been found in many studies
-> researchers suggest this is because of increased numbers of mothers of very young children working long hours and using professional childcare

Question 13

What do the findings of Simonella et.al’s research suggest?

Answer 13

That patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change

Question 14

What did the Korean study by Jin et.al (2012) aim to investigate?

Answer 14

Compared the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies by using the Strange Situation to assess 87 babies

Question 15

What were the findings of the Korean study by Jin et.al?

Answer 15

• Overall proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to those in most countries, with most infants being secure
• However, more of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only one baby was avoidant
• This distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan

Question 16

What do the findings of the Korean study by Jin et.al suggest?

Answer 16

Since Japan and Korea have quite similar child rearing styles, this similarity might be explained in terms of child rearing style

Question 17

Evaluation: Method of assessment is culturally biased -> limitation

Answer 17

• The strange situation methodology was developed in America and therefore the results may be culturally biased
• This is because the strange situation is argued to be an ethnocentric procedure
• Developed in America, based on American norms, so may only be useful for studying Western children
• Using the Strange Situation to assess the attachments of non-western children could be argued to be inappropriate as it does not take into account culturally specific elements
• Applying this technique designed to measure one culture onto another suggests using the Strange Situation to measure attachment styles in non Western cultures is an imposed etic bias

Question 18

Evaluation: Large samples -> strength

Answer 18

• A strength of combining the results of attachment studies carried out in different countries is that you can end up with a very large sample
• E.g. in the Van Ijzendoorn meta-analysis there were a total of nearly 2000 babies and their primary caregiver attachment figures
• Even the Simonella and Jin studies had large comparison groups from previous research, although their own samples were smaller
• overall sample size = strength bc large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or very unusual participants

Question 19

Evaluation: Samples tend to be unrepresentative of cultures -> limitation

Answer 19

• The meta-analysis by Van Ijzendoorn claimed to study cultural variations whereas, in fact, the comparisons were between countries, not cultures
• Within any country there are many cultures with different child-rearing practices
• e.g. one sample might over-represent people living in poverty, stress might affect caregiving and hence patterns of attachment
• An analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo (an urban setting) were similar to Western studies, whereas a more rural sample had an over-representation of insecure-resistant individuals
• Also, 27/32 studies in their meta-analysis were carried out in individualistic cultures, so we cannot generalise the results to collectivist cultures, lowering the population validity
• In some countries, Van Ijzendoorn only looked at a small number of studies (1 in China compared to 18 in the USA0, meaning the results may not be truly representative and may not generalise to the country at large
• Means comparisons between countries have little meaning and the specific cultural characteristics of the sample need to be specified