Cultural Variations in Attachment

• •A culture is a set of norms, traditions, beliefs and values shared by a large group of people.
• •Individualist cultures are typically Western, and emphasise independence, individuality and autonomy at the expense of group goals, resulting in a strong sense of competition.
• •Collectivist cultures are typically Eastern, and emphasise group membership, interdependence (relying on each other) and cooperation.•
• •Cultural variations are the differences in norms and values that exist between people in different groups. In attachment research, we are concerned with the differences in the proportion of children of different attachment types.•
• VAN Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) - procedure

  •A study was carried out to investigate the proportions of attachment types across a range of countries (secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant)•

  PROCEDURE:

  •The researchers used studies which had used the strange situation to determine attachment types. There were 32 studies in total from 8 countries.•Overall the 32 studies investigated 1990 children.•The data for these 32 studies were meta-analysed.•
• VAN Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) - findings

  FINDINGS:

  •There was a wide variation between the proportions of attachment types in different studies•In all countries, secure attachment was the most common classification, although this varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China.
• VAN Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) - findings

  •Insecure-resistant was overall the least common type, although this varied from 3% in Britain to 30% in Israel.•Insecure-avoidant attachments were most observed in Germany and least observed in Japan.
• Ao3 – sample size


  •Large sample increase the internal validity of the results by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or very unusual participants. Additionally, the results are more likely to be externally valid as they will apply to other children in the country and so we can be more certain about cultural variations in attachment. A strength of combining the results of attachment studies carried out in different countries is that you can end up with a very large sample e.g. nearly 2000 in van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study
• Ao3 – countries v culture

  •van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study claimed to study cultural variation, when in compared countries and not cultures. Within any country there are many different cultures, each with different childrearing practices. One sample, for example, might overrepresent people in poverty.
• Ao3 – countries v culture


  •This means that comparisons between countries may have little meaning. The particular cultural characteristics (and thus the caregiving styles) of the sample need to be specified. We should exercise great caution in assuming that an individual sample is representative of a particular culture.
• Ao3 – imposed etic


  •There is a question over whether American theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures. Trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture in another culture is called an imposed etic.In Germany, this behaviour might be seen more as independence than avoidance and hence not a sign of insecurity with that cultural context••Therefore, the theory is too rooted in American culture to be usefully applied to other cultures.
• Ao3 – undermining conclusion

  •According to Bowlby’s theory, the reason for universal similarities in how attachments form is because attachment is an innate mechanism, unaffected by culture. At least some of the cultural similarities may be explained by the effects of mass media, which spread ideas about parenting.
• Ao3 – undermining conclusion

  Consequently, the cultural similarities may not be due to innate biological influences, but because of our increasingly global culture. Therefore, from the research, it is not possible to definitively conclude the reason for cultural similarities in attachment.