Cultural variations

• What was the procedure of Van Ijzendoor and Kroonenbergs meta analysis?

  • Studied proportions of attachment types across countries and within cultures in the same country
  • 32 studies of attachment from 8 countries
  • 15 USA studies
  • Studied 1,990 children
  • Meta analysis
• Findings of Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg?

  • Secure was most common classification
  • Insecure resistant least common
  • 75% secure in Britian, 50% China
  • 30% insecure resistant Israel, 3% Britain
  • Germany most insecure avoidant, Japan least
• What did Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg find with intracultural variation?

  • Intra-cultural variation was 150x greater than cross cultural variation
  • E.g. USA found 46% secure in one study whilst other found 90%
  • LINK TO EVAL AND ISSUES OF ALPHA BIAS IN CULTURE
• Italian study as a cultural variation

  • Simonella et al (2014)
  • 76, 12 month olds using SS
  • 50% secure, 36% avoidant
  • Suggests this is due to an increasing number of mothers working longer hours and relying on professional daycare
  • Therefore suggests secure attachment is not common universally
• Korean study as a cultural variation

  • Jin et al (2012)
  • 87 children assessed using SS
  • Insecure and secure were similar to most country findings
  • Most classified as insecure were resistant, only 1 avoidant
  • Similar to the findings in Japan which may suggest similar child-rearing styles due to shared cultural beliefs
• Overall conclusion from meta analysis

  • Secure attachment is the norm in a wide range of cultures supporting Bowlby's theory that attachment is innate and universal
  • Cultural practises influence attachment type which may explain variations
• What is a strength from the sample used in I+K meta analysis? (AO3)

  • Large sample from combining various studies
  • Increased internal validity as risk of anomalous results is reduced or bad methodology used
  • This may suggest the conclusion derived is less likely to be distorted and is highly representative of the wider population meaning it has high ecological validity/generalisability on attachment types in countries
• What is an issue with representativity from the meta analysis?

  • Sample may be unrepresentative of culture
  • Study focuses on different countries where cultures may vary within the country itself
  • A sample may over or underestimate people living in poverty which will directly affect caregiving and attachment type
• Study to support point for underepresentation (AO3)

  • Izjendoorn and Sagi found attachment types in Tokyo were similar to western studies whilst a more rural sample over-represented insecure resistant individuals
  • Suggests cross-cultural variation may have little meaning/conclusion about how attachment type may vary, samples must be specified. Limits explanatory power
• What is an issue with the method of assessment used? (AO3)

  • Method of assessment is biased
  • Used SS to assess attachment type, designed by an American researcher based on British theory (Ainsworth and Bowlby)
  • Anglo-american theories being applied to other cultures is a form of imposed etic and alpha bias in culture
  • E.g. lack of reunion behaviour may indicate insecure attachment, Germany views this as independance rather than avoidance (GROSSMAN AND GROSSMAN)