CULTURAL VARIATION IN ATTACHMENT

• All cultures have the same attachment 


  evolution & innate mechanism (nature).
• All cultures have different attachments 


  environment & learning (nurture).
• VAN IJZENDOORN AND KROONENBERG (1988) META-ANALYSIS:

  Procedure

  The researchers looked at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries. 

  They also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture. 

  They found 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used. These were conducted in 8 countries, 15 in the US.

  Overall the studies yielded results for 1990 children. 

  They data was meta-analysed, results being combined and weighted for sample size.
• VAN IJZENDOORN AND KROONENBERG (1988) META-ANALYSIS:

  Findings and conclusions

  Secure attachment was the most common classification in all countries, but ranged from 50% in China to 75% in Britain. 

   
• VAN IJZENDOORN AND KROONENBERG (1988) META-ANALYSIS:

  Findings and conclusions

  In individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to AINSWORTHS original sample (all under 14%) but this was not true or the collectivist samples from China, Japan and Israel where rates were above 25% (and where rates of insecure-avoidant attachment were reduced).

  This suggests that there were cultural differences in the distribution of insecure attachment.

   
• VAN IJZENDOORN AND KROONENBERG (1988) META-ANALYSIS:

  Findings and conclusions

  
  

  Variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries.  

  In the US, 1 study found 46% securely attached compared to 1 sample as high as 90%.

  Western cultures = insecure avoidant 

  Non western - insecure resistant