Cultural Variations in Attachment

• Individualist cultures


  cultures which emphasise the needs of individual over the needs of group

  in this type, people are viewed as independence + autonomous e.g. the UK, USA and Germany
• Collectivist cultures


  cultures which stress the importance of the group and social cooperation

  people might be more likely to turn to family/friends for support during hard times e.g. China + Japan
• Study: Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg

  conducted a meta-analysis to look at proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation

  PROCEDURE: located 32 studies where the SS had been used in investigate proportions of babies with different attachment types

  32 studies were conducted in 8 countries.

  studies yielded for 1,990 children

  CONCLUSION: secure attachment seems to be norm in wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby's idea, attachment is innate + universal
• Study results

  Secure - most dominant attachment type

  in Germany, children are taught to be independent

  in Israel, China and Japan, mother-infant separation is care so more insecure-resistant

  
• Italian study

  Simonelli et al conducted a study to see whether proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those in previous babies

  used SS, assessing 76 babies, 12months

  RESULTS: 50% were secure, 36% were insecure-avoidant

  lower rate of secure attachment + higher insecure avoidant compared to other studies

  results suggest patterns of attachment type aren't fixed
• Korean study


  Jin et al conducted a study to compare proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies

  SS used to assess 87 babies

  RESULTS: overall proportion of insecure + secure babies were similar to most countries, most babies were secure

  more classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only 1 baby was avoidant

  results are similar to distribution of attachment types in Japan
• Weakness - unrepresentative sample

  meta-analysis made comparisons between countries, not cultures.

  each country has number of different cultures each with different child-rearing techniques. so, one sample used in study may have been over-represented by people living in poverty who are highly stressed which may affect their caregiving and patterns of attachment

  e.g. Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi study found insecure resistant individuals -> means comparisons between countries may have little meaning.

  sample needs to be specified
• Weakness - alternative explanation for cultural similarity

  according to Bowlby's theory the reason for universal similarities how attachments form in because attachment is an innate mechanism, unmodified by culture

  Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg suggest some cultural similarities might be explained by effects of mass media spreading ideas about parenting so children globally was exposed to similar influences.

  Weakness - contradicts Bowlby's claim, suggesting cultural similarities may not be due to innate biological influence but our increasing global culture
• Weakness - method of assessment is biased

  comparing cultures using SS may be 'ethnocentric'

  e.g. SS was designed by Ainsworth and based on a British theory.

  question over whether western theories and studies can be applied to other cultures.

  Trying to apply a theory designed for one culture onto another - 'imposed etic'.

  in Britain + USA -> lack of separation and lack of affection on reunion may suggest insecure attachment. however in Germany behaviour may be seen as independence rather than avoidance.

  Weakness - behaviours measured by SS may not have same meanings in different cultural contexts
• Strength - large samples

  using meta-analyses and combining results of a range of attachment studies means psychologist will end up with a large sample.

  Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg's meta-analysis used nearly 2,000 babies and primary attachment figure.

  Strength - overall sample size is large increasing internal validity by reducing impact of anomalous results by bed methodology or very unusual ppts.