cultural variations in attachment

• Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta analysis (procedure)

  • looked at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries
  • also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture
  • They found 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation had been used
  • These were conducted in 8 countries (15 in the US)
  • overall the studies yielded results for 1,990 children
  • The data was meta-analysed = results being combined and weighted for sample size
• Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta analysis (findings/conclusions)

  • Secure attachment = the most common classification in all countries
  • Ranged from 50% in China to 75% in Britain
  • individualistic cultures = rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth‘s original sample (all under 14%)
  • Collectivist cultures = insecure-resistant rates above 25% (eg China, Japan, Israel) - rates of insecure-avoidant reduced
  • Culture differences in distribution of insecure attachment
  • variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than those between countries
  • In US = one study found 46% securely attached compared to one sample with 90%
• Simonelli et al (Italian study of attachment)

  • Procedure:
  • Assessed 76 babies (aged 12 months) in Italy, using the strange situation
  • to whether the proportion of attachment types still matched previous studies in Italy
  • Findings/conclusions:
  • Found that 50% were secure and 36% insecure-avoidant
  • This lower rate of secure attachment may be because increasingly mothers work long hours and use more childcare
  • Shows that cultural changes can affect patterns of attachment
• Jin et al (Korean study of attachment)

  • Procedure:
  • Compared the attachment types of 87 Korean babies to proportions in other studies
  • Findings/conclusions:
  • Found similar patterns of secure and insecure attachment to other studies
  • BUT within insecure categories there were differences
  • Only one baby was avoidant
  • This pattern is similar to Japan and may be because both countries have similar child-rearing practices
• strength = studies use indigenous researchers

  • Indigenous researchers = those from the same cultural backgrounds as the participants
  • Eg = Grossman et al = Germans working with German participants
  • Using indigenous researchers aids communication between researchers and participants and helps prevents misunderstandings (eg of instructions)
  • Means that there is an excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated successfully, increasing the validity of the study
• Counterpoint to the strength of using indigenous researchers

  • Not been true of all cross-cultural research
  • Eg = Americans Morelli and Tronick = investigated the Efé in Zaire
  • Means that some cross-cultural attachment research may have communication errors and hence lacks validity
• limitation = impact of confounding variables

  • Studies conducted in different countries may not be matched for sample characteristics
  • Eg = studies in different countries may use children of different ages and social classes
  • Environmental variables may also differ
  • Eg = using smaller rooms which might encourage babies to explore more
  • Means that studies assessing attachment types carried out in different countries may tell us little about cultural differences in attachment
• limitation = imposing a test designed in one culture (an imposed etic)

  • Using a test (the strange situation) in a different cultural context from the one for which it was designed may be meaningless
  • The strange situation was designed in the US where lack of affection at reunion represents insecure attachment
  • BUT in Germany it would be seen as a sign of independence
  • Means that it may be meaningless to compare attachment behaviours across countries
• Extra evaluation = competing explanations

  • The reasons for similar patterns of attachment across cultures is explained by Bowlby’s theory that attachment is innate - so secure attachment is the universal norm
  • BUT = van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg = suggest this similarly may be more a product of media representations of correct parenting
  • Means that it is hard to know whether Bowlby’s theory is true as there is a credible alternative explanation