Cultural Variations in Attachment, Including Van Ijzendoorn

• What do individualistic cultures value?

  Independence and the importance of the individual
• What do collectivistic cultures value?

  The group and shared responsibilities
• Who conducted the study on cultural variations in attachment?

  Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg
• What was the aim of Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg's study?

  To replicate the Strange Situation across countries
• What method did Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg use in their study?

  Meta-analysis of 32 Strange Situation studies
• Approximately how many children were included in the studies?

  1990 children
• What were the attachment types found in the studies?

  • Secure
  • Insecure-Avoidant
  • Insecure-Resistant
• How many countries were involved in the meta-analysis?

  8 countries
• Which attachment type was the most common?

  Secure attachment
• Which attachment type was the least common in the studies?

  Insecure-Resistant attachment
• Which country had the highest number of secure attachments?

  UK
• Which country had the highest number of avoidant attachments?

  Germany
• Which country had the highest number of resistant attachments?

  Israel
• How much greater was the variation within cultures compared to between cultures?

  1.5 times greater
• What are the advantages of using indigenous researchers in cross-cultural studies?

  • Avoids language misunderstandings
  • Reduces bias from stereotypes
  • Enhances validity of data collected
• What issue did Morelli & Tronick (1991) face in their study?

  They were outsiders studying the Efe of Zaire
• How might outsider researchers affect data collection?

  By introducing bias and communication difficulties
• What are confounding variables in cross-cultural studies?

  • Different methodologies across studies
  • Variations in room size and toys
  • Affect classification of attachment behaviors
• What is an imposed etic?

  Assuming one cultural idea applies universally
• How is avoidant attachment interpreted differently in Germany compared to the UK?

  As independence rather than insecurity
• Why might comparing attachment behaviors across cultures be meaningless?

  Behaviors may have different meanings in contexts
• What is a strength of Van Ijzendoorn’s research?

  Indigenous Researchers

  • Indigenous researchers being used means that many of the potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided, such as misunderstandings of the language used by participants
  • This may also include difficulties such as a bias due to stereotypes about another country
  • This means there is an excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated successfully, which enhances the validity of the data collected
• What is a limitation of Van Ijzendoorn’s research?

  Potential Bias

  • Morelli & Tronick (1991) were outsiders from the US when they studied child-rearing and patterns of attachment in the Efe of Zaire
  • Their data might have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from participants outside their own culture
  • This means that the data from some countries might have been affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication
• What is a limitation of Van Ijzendoorn’s research?

  Confounding Variables

  • Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses
  • For example, the size of the room and the availability of interesting toys there may make a baby appear to be less proximity seeking and so may be classified as avoidant
  • This means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies from different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment
• What is a limitation of Van Ijzendoorn’s research?

  Imposed Etic

  • Imposed etic occurs when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another
  • In the UK and the US, lack of affection on reunion would indicate an avoidant attachment, but in Germany, it would be interpreted as independence rather insecurity
  • This means that the behaviours measured by the Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts and comparing them across cultures is meaningless