Cultural variations in attachment

• Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

  • conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries. ​
  • In this study, they also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.​
• PROCEDURE: ​

  • The researchers located 32 studies (which included 1,990 children in total) of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used to investigate the proportions of infants with different attachment types. ​
  • These 32 studies were conducted in eight countries (18 of which were in the USA). ​
  • The data for these 32 studies were subject to a meta-analysis whereby results were combined and weighted to be analysed.​
• FINDINGS: ​

  • In all countries, secure attachment was the most common classification. However, the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China. ​
  • Insecure-resistant attachment was overall the least common type although the proportion ranged from 3% in Britain to 29% in Israel.
  • Insecure-avoidant attachments were observed most commonly in Germany (35%) and least commonly in Japan.

  ​
• Grossman’s study of Ainsworth’s strange situation in Germany explored cultural differences in attachment styles between children and their caregivers. The same procedure was used as the original strange situation study in the US. Grossman found that German infants were more likely to be classified as insecure-avoidant (35%). As an indigenous researcher, Grossman explained that this was due to Germany’s emphasis on independence and self-reliance from young. Grossman’s study highlighted how cultural norms and values influence child-rearing practices, which in turn shape attachment behaviours.
• Takahashi’s study of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation in Japan explored how Japanese infants responded to the procedure, with a particular focus on cultural differences in attachment styles. The same procedure was used as the original strange situation, with 60 middle-class Japanese infants and their mothers. It was found that there was a much higher proportion of Japanese infants were classified as insecure-resistant (32%) compared to Western studies. As an indigenous researcher, Takahashi contextualised these findings by highlighting how Japanese infants are rarely separated from their mothers.
• A weakness of van Ijzerndoorn and Kroonenberg‘s study of cultural variations in attachment is that it did not focus enough on intra-cultural variations within countries. It was found that variations between results of studies within the same country were 1.5x greater than those between countries. In the USA, one study found 46% securely attached compared to 90% in a different sample. This limits the study as it failed to recognise how attachment behaviours can vary based on socioeconomic status, subcultures and regions.
• A strength of van Ijzerndoorn and Kroonenberg’s study into cultural variations in attachment is its large sample size. The meta-analysis included 32 studies from 8 countries and analysed attachment data from nearly 2,000 children. This strengthens the study as a large sample size increases the internal validity, as well as the reliability and generalisability of the findings. Also, by using many studies, they reduced the influence of anomalies in individual studies.
• A weakness of van Ijzerdoorn and Kroonenberg’s study is that the method is culturally biased. The Strange Situation was developed in a Western cultural context, and its interpretation of attachment behaviours may not fully capture cultural norms in non-Western societies. For example, behaviours categorised as "insecure" in one culture (e.g., avoidant or resistant behaviours) might reflect normative child-rearing practices in another culture, as seen in Japan (Takahashi’s study) and Germany (Grossman’s study). This limits the study as the method lacks cross-cultural validity.
• A weakness of van Ijzerndoorn and Kroonenberg’s study into cultural variation in attachment is that there is a limited range of cultures. Most of the studies were concentrated in Western societies (18 of the 32 studies were completed in America) while fewer from non-Western or more diverse cultural settings, limiting the broader cross-cultural generalisability of the findings. This limits the study as it lacks construct validity and therefore, there is not enough data to ensure a representative conclusion.