Cultural variations

• Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg- meta-analysis of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries for cultural variation
• Procedure:

  • 32 studies where SS was used.
  • 8 countries- 15 in the US
  • Overall, 1,990 children
  • Meta-analysed- results combined and analysed together.
• Findings:

  • Secure was the most common- but varied from 75% in Britain and 50% in China.
  • Individualist countries had a low insecure-resistant attachment but collectivist countries (China, Japan and Israel) were above 25%.
  • Variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries.
• Simonelli (Italy, 2014)- 76 babies aged 12 months using SS.

  • Found 50% were secure and 36% insecure-avoidant.
  • Suggest this is because of increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare.
• Kyoung Jin (Korea, 2012)- SS is to assess 87 babies

  • Overall proportions of insecure and secure similar to those in most countries, with most being secure.
  • More insecure-resistant and one avoidant- similar to types found in Japan.
  • Japan and Korea have similar child-rearing styles
• • Secure attachment seems to be norm in a wide range of countries- supporting Bowbly's idea that attachment is innate and universal.
• Strength: Indigenous researchers

  • Most studies conducted by indigenous psychologists.
  • I and K included studied from Grossmann (Germany) and Takahashi (Japan)
  • Means cross-cultural research can be avoided- no difficulty in language or one's stereotype of a country.
  • Means an excellent chance that researchers and ppts communicated successfully- enhancing the validity.
• Counterpoint to indigenous researchers:

  • Not been true of all cross-cultural attachment research.
  • E.g. Morelli and Tronick- outsiders from US when studied child-rearing in Efé of Zaire
  • Data might have been affected by difficulties gathering data from ppts outside their own country
  • Means data might have been affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication
• Limitation: Confounding variables

  • Impact of confounding variables on findings
  • Studies not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses.
  • Poverty, class and urban/rural make-up can confound results or age of ppts
  • Means looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment.
• Limitation: Imposed etic

  • In trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context
  • Occurs when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another.
  • Germany- avoidance behaviour seen as independence rather than insecurity.
  • Means behaviours measured by SS may not have same meanings in different cultural contexts