week 2 = To what extent can attachment be viewed as universal?

Question 1

plan

Answer 1

1. introduction
2. universality differences
   3.normativity for
3. universality claims

Question 2

1. introduction

Answer 2

• Bowlby= a secure base from which a child can make sorties into the outside world (1988) . Usually aimed at one individual.
• Over the years it has been compared to f a secondary-> primary drive , equated to as essential as nutrition.
• predisposition to seek proximity with another individual , with an innate desire to form attachments, gave rise to..
• Universality hypothesis derived from attachment theory. States all infants will become attached to one or more specific caregivers.
• Essay will look into the evidence for this

Question 3

2a. universality differences

Answer 3

What it means
All infants should show a preferential bond over strangers, eliciting specific behaviours
Predisposition means we should see attachment behaviours across all infants to one or more specific caregivers across cultures.
Cross cultural research
Researchers argue that attachment studies are mainly carried out by western countries, even though they make up only 10% of the world (Tomlinson et al 2014) . So to identify if attachment is indeed a universal phenomenon  ross cultural research that may reveal variability in attachment behaviours

Question 4

2b. universality differences

Answer 4

Evidence
Mesman et al. (2016) argued that universality does nit include cultural specificity . Found that insecure types sig vary across countries. Identified variability in attachment specific behaviours . For example (reunion phase handshake vs running up) . though different, still attachment seeking behaviours . This suggests universality
Though due to differences in behaviours = found harder to classify insecure classification in different cultural settings . This means that we need to think carefully when transplanting how we measure attachment into different cultures. May be that western measures can indeed prove attachment behaviours are universal however adaptation may be needed to better measure insecure outside America

Question 5

3a. Normativity for

Answer 5

What it means
Extending from universality, if it’s a predisposition, obtaining a secure attachment should show evolutionary advantage. It is the most optimal as it allows for exploration.
Normativity means secure should therefore be the most common attachment across cultures. Therefore, to explore this claim we will also look at cross cultural research

Question 6

3b. Normativity for

Answer 6

Evidence
Mesman et al. (2016) looked at SS studies beyond American and europe to test claim of normativity. Study found secure to be the most common classification (+normativity)
However varies slightly across countries with percentages not being identical in all cultures e.g. in Chile = 50% compared to 70% in south Korea .Additionally number of countries gathered from SS was very little, it may be that the discrepancies between countries is much bigger
Representativeness
Mardigan (2023) meta-analysis to explore the no of countries that use SS. Variability was wide. Asia has 4 studies compared to 203 from America. Similarly, found attachment security to vary.( Tomlinson,2014) found breaking these countries up into regions accounted for a greater variability , different regions showed different patterns of secure attachment, questioning validity of normativity .
Increasing Investigations of attachment in not just countries, but non-western regions may give rise to explanations and clearer estimations of common classifications to better answer the normativity question

Question 7

4a. Universality claims

Answer 7

Why is universality so hard to answer
Kelly (2018) criticised attachment work and the difficulties applying western classifications to other countries. Focus on dyadic relationship where nuclear family is most dom mode of family , different in other countries .
Focus on autonomy:
Secure includes exploring to develop autonomy but countries have diff povs on it. Collectivist may not prioritise independence, leading to them not necessarily classifying this behaviour as secure . This means principles of secure is grounded in only specific cultural context lessening applicability to other cultures . Means the way we measure attachment could be misleading us in terms of data.