Cultural Variations in Attachment

• Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg's Research:

  Conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess their cultural variation; looking at differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.
• Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg's Research:

  Procedure- researchers located 32 studies of attachment using the strange situation, these were conducted in 8 countries- 15 were in the US. Overall, studies yielded results for 1,990 children. The data from the 32 studies was meta-analysed and the results were combined and analysed together.
• Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg's Research:

  Findings- there was a wide variation between the proportion of attachment types in different studies; secure was the most common throughout- however the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China. In individualist cultures, insecure-resistant were like Ainsworth's findings (all under 14%), but in collectivist cultures rates were all above 25% and Type-A was reduced.

  There was more variation between studies within one country than between (differences 150% greater)- USA had secure as 46% in one, and 90% in another.
• Italian Study

  Simonelli et al conducted a study in Italy to see if proportions of attachment types still matched prior research. Assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using the SS. They found 50% were secure, and 36% were avoidant. This was a lower rate of secure than in past studies, and higher rate of Type-A. Suggesting this is due to an increasing number of mothers with young children working longer hours with professional childcare. Suggesting attachment trends aren't static, they move with cultural change.
• Korean Study

  Jin et al conducted a study which compared attachment types in Korea to other studies, the SS was used to assess 87 babies. The overall proportions of secure and insecure were like most countries, with most being secure. However, all but 1 of the insecurely children were resistant- this distribution is like that of Japan in van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg's research. Since they have similar child-rearing practices.
• Conclusions of Cultural Variation Studies

  Secure attachment is the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby's idea that attachment is innate and universal, and that secure is the universal norm. However, research clearly shows that child-rearing practices have an influence on attachment type.
• AO3- Indigenous Researchers

  The majority of the research conducted was done with researchers with the same cultural background as p's. They included research from a German team (Grossmann et al) and Takahashi who is Japanese. Meaning cross-cultural research problems are avoided (such as language misunderstandings or difficulty communicating instructions). Difficulties can also include bias due to one nation's stereotype of another. There is then a high chance communication was successful- increasing validity.
• AO3- Counterpoint to Indigenous Researchers

  This is not true of all cross-cultural attachment research. For example, Morelli and Tronick were outsiders from America when they studied the Efe of Zaire. Their data may have been impacted by difficulties in gathering data from p's outside their culture- some countries may have been affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication.
• AO3- Confounding Variables

  Cross-cultural studies aren't always matched for methodology when compared within meta-analyses. Simple characteristics like poverty, social class and urban/rural makeup can confound the variables- as can the age of pupils studied. Environmental variables might differ between studies- the room size and interesting toy availability- can make babies appear to explore more in a small room with more toys. With a less visible proximity-seeking due to room size can make a child more likely to be classed as avoidant.
• AO3- Imposed Etic

  This occurs when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another. An example is reunion behaviour in the SS- where no reunion response would symbolise an insecure-avoidant attachment; those in Germany would be likely to interpret this as independence rather than insecurity. Therefore, measured behaviours of the SS may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts- so comparisons are therefore meaningless.
• AO3- Competing Explanations

  The global media represents a particular view of how parents and babies are meant to behave, this may override traditional cultural differences in the way children are brought up, van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg.
• AO3- Temperament

  Kagan argues that the SS wasn't measuring attachment to PAFs, instead it was measuring a child's temperament; the genetically-influenced personality of a child. Therefore, temperament may be seen as a confounding variable, limiting the validity of research conclusions.