cultural variations

• key term

  Cultural variations: Differences in norms and values between groups that may affect how attachment is expressed and classified.
• Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) – Meta-analysis

  • Aim: Compare rates of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachment across cultures.
  • Method: Meta-analysis of 32 studies using Ainsworth’s Strange Situation across 8 countries.
  • Findings:
  • Secure attachment most common in all cultures (e.g. 75% UK, 50% China).
  • Insecure-avoidant more common in Germany.
  • Insecure-resistant more common in Japan.
  • Greater variation within cultures (150%) than between cultures (35%).
• other cultural studies

  • Simonelli et al. (Italy, 2014):
  • Found lower rates of secure attachment than expected.
  • More avoidant infants – may be due to increased working mothers.
  • Jin et al. (Korea, 2012):
  • Distribution similar to Japan – most were secure, very few avoidant.
  • Cultural practices (e.g. mothers rarely separate from babies) may explain.
• conclusions

  • Secure attachment appears to be universal norm.
  • Cultural childrearing practices influence attachment types.
  • Differences reflect environmental and societal context more than biological universality.
• evaluation

  • ✅ Indigenous researchers:
  • Reduces cultural misunderstanding and bias (e.g. Takahashi in Japan).
  • ❌ Confounding variables:
  • Poverty, social class, education levels may affect attachment outcomes.
  • ❌ Imposed etic:
  • Western-based tools like Strange Situation may not be valid in all cultures.
  • E.g. Japanese children rarely left alone, so may appear more resistant.
  • ✅ Evaluation extra – Competing explanations:
  • Could reflect innate attachment behaviours or learned social norms.
  • Bowlby = universal behaviours; Van IJzendoorn = nurture + practice.