cultural variations in attachment

• individualistic western countries?

  • emphasises personal independence & achievement
  • variation in parenting styles
  • e.g uk/us/germany
• collectivist non western countries?

  • emphasises importance of family & shared goals above individual needs/desires
  • more similarities in child rearing as they are a community
  • e.g china/japan
• cultural variation?

  • bowlby believed that attachments were innate
  • the need to form this inital bond should be genetic & experienced by infants of every culture
  • but kind of attachments formed may vary between societies/cultures depending upon child rearing techniques seen as most desirable within community
• van ijzendoorn & kroonenberg 1988?

  • carried out meta-analysis combining findings of 32 studies of stange situation from variety of 8 countries & based on observation of over 2000 children
• what was the most common attachment type in all countries?

  secure
• which countries were used in the meta-analysis?

  • usa
  • uk
  • west germany
  • japan
  • china
  • israel
• which country had the highest insecure avoidant attachment type?

  germany - 35%
• which country had the highest secure attachment type?

  uk - 75%
• which country had the highest insecure resistant attachment type?

  israel - 29%
• what was the most common attachment type in western countries>?

  • insecure avoidant
• what was the mot common attachment type in non western countries?

  • insecure resistant
• why did germany have the highest insecure avoidant %?

  • may be due to germany placing more importance & value on independence in upbringing
  • encourage infants to not be clingy
  • explains why infants dont become distressed when mum leaves & why they have willingness to explore
• why was insecure avoidant so common in japan?

  • may be due to japanese raising children very closely to mother
  • rarely separated from mum
  • causes infant to be clingy
  • may explain why infants get distressed when separated from mum
• grossman et al 1985?

  • german parents seek "independent non-clingy infants who do not make demands on parents but obey their commands"
• concept of amae in japan?

  • emotional dependence
  • infants showing amae exhibit much clinging behaviour & need for attention
• israel kibbutz?

  • communal settlement - typically a farm
  • children were used to being separated from mother
  • do not show anxiety when mum leaves
• fox 1977?

  • tested children in s.s using either their mother/metapelet (kibbutz nurse)
  • children appeared similarly attached to both except for reunion behaviour when they were more pleased to see mother
• 2 * of cultural variations?

  1. large sample was used
  2. ethically sound (more ethical)
• 3 X of cultural variations?

  1. issue of imposed etic (generalise observations from one culture to another)
  2. differences not just across cultures but within one culture
  3. looked at small number of studies
• * large sample was used?

  • in meta-analysis was 2000 babies & their primary att figures
  • reduces impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology/very unusual participants
  • more likely to be representative sample
  • more data to analyse & apply
  • findings of different att types can be generalised to wider population
• * ethically sound?

  • was no new data collection involved in study
  • no more children had to be put through potentially traumatic s.s procedure
  • credible
  • is more ethical way of studying cultural variations as no primary data being collected so no manipulation
  • ethical guideline of protection from harm not being broken
  • is secondary data meaning it was collected previously by other researchers & no children were distressed as a result
• X issue of imposed etic?

  • test for one culture used in unfamiliar cultures
  • s.s designed by american based on british theory
  • ? population
  • means comparisons between countries may have little meaning
  • difficult to generalise findings from western research to other non western cultures
• X differences within one culture?

  • wrong to think everyone in culture have same practices
  • within culture there are many subcultures with different child rearing techniques
  • may be ethnically/racially based or class specific
  • e.g middle classes may have different techniques to working class
  • upper class traditionally use nannies
  • ? internal
  • does not consider different subcultures/sectors of society that may impact child rearing & att they have
  • means these individual differences may be confounding variables & impact accuracy of results
• X looked at small number of studies?

  • despite large numbers of studies combined in the meta-analysis over half 18/32 were in USA
  • only 5/32 were carried out in collectivist cultures - only 1 in china
  • ? population
  • unrepresentative of att in all cultures
  • findings cannot be generalised to everyone
  • suggests cause & effect relationship cannot be established between att styles & cultural differences in child rearing