Cultural Variations in Attachment

• • If Bowlby is correct & attachment is innate, it should be universal across cultures.
  • If secure attachment is the optimal form for all humans, it should be dominant across cultures.
  • Different cultural child-rearing practices should not affect this.
• Key Study: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988):

  • Aim= to see if there is evidence of inter-cultural differences in attachment (also looked at intra-cultural differences).
  • Conducted a meta-analysis of the findings of 32 studies of attachment.
  • Altogether the studies examined 2000 Strange Situation classifications in 8 different countries.
  • All studies used the same procedure & looked at mother-infant interactions.
• Key Study: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) findings:

  • Secure attachments were found to be the most dominant across all cultures- on average findings are consistent with Ainsworth's original research.
  • Lowest secure attachment in China, highest in Great Britain.
  • Insecure-avoidant was the next most common in all countries apart from Japan & Israel.
  • Germany had highest level of avoidant, Japan & Israel highest level of resistant.
  • Variation within cultures was 1.5 times greater than the variation between culture.
• Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) key study conclusion:

  • As there is little cultural variation compared to the original US sample, it is indicated that attachment is an innate feature.
• Evaluating cultural variation in attachment- weakness:

  • The meta-analysis is heavily skewed towards Western countries to assess cultural variation in attachment.
  • A disproportionately high number of the studies reviewed were conducted in the USA & many areas of the world were totally omitted (eg Africa & South America).
  • This means that the apparent consistency between cultures might not genuinely reflect how much attachment types vary between cultures.
  • Means that Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg's meta-analysis is not a valid measure of cultural variations in attachment.
• Evaluating cultural variation in attachment- weakness:

  • Some research does show cultural variation in attachment.
  • Grossman & Grossman (1991) found German children tended to be classified as insecure rather than secure.
  • This could be down to a specific cultural child-rearing practice that values independence so children didn't seek proximity (thus appearing insecure).
  • If attachment varies due to cultural variations in child-rearing, then it questions if attachment is innate.
• Evaluating cultural variation in attachment- weakness:

  • Some research does show cultural variations in attachment- Takahashi (1990) found similar rates of secure attachments in Japanese children, but found no insecure avoidant children & high rates of insecure resistant.
  • As Japanese child rearing rarely involves separation from the mother, this would explain why they appear so distressed in the SS- means that they only appear insecure.
  • If attachment varies due to cultural variations in child-rearing, then it questions if attachment is innate.
• Evaluating cultural variation in attachment- weakness:

  • Issues with using the SS to assess cultural variation in attachment.
  • The SS was developed in the USA using American samples.
  • Imposing one culture's view of 'normal behaviour' on another imposed etic, eg 'willingness to explore' is deemed a sign of secure attachment, but may not be present in Japanese samples.
  • Means that the SS is not a valid tool to measure cultural variations in attachment- meaning the meta-analysis of its findings is also invalid.