Cultural variations in attachment

• who conducted a meta analysis into cultural variations in attachment?

  Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
• aim of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)


  the researchers looked at the proportions of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachments across a range of countries. they also looked at differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture
• procedure of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

  • 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
  • the data was meta-analysed, results being combined and weighted for sample size
• findings of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

  • secure attachment was the most common in all countries but ranged from 50% in china - 75% in britain
  • in individualist cultures rates of insecure resistant attachment were similar to ainsworth (under 14%)
  • in collectivist cultures (China, Japan and Israel) insecure resistant rates were above 25%
  • variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than between countries
  • in the US, one study found 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%
• conclusion of Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)


  there was cultural differences in the distribution of insecure attachment
• other studies into cultural variations in attachment: Simonelli (2014)


  procedure: simonelli assessed 76 babies aged 12 months in Italy using the Strange Situation to see whether the proportion of attachment types still matched previous studies in Italy

  Findings: 50% were secure, 36% insecure avoidant. this lower rates of secure attachment may be becasue increasingly mother work long hours and use more childcare

  conclusion: cultural changes can affect patters of attachment
• other studies into cultural variations in attachment: Jin 2012

  procedure: Jin compared attachment types of 87 Korean babies to proportions in other studies

  Findings: Jin found similar patters of secure and insecure attachment to other studies. however, within insecure categories there were differences - only 1 baby was avoidant

  conclusion: this pattern is similar to japan and may be becase both countries have similar child rearing practices
• One strength of the studies is the use of indigenous researchers

  Indigenous researchers are those from the same cultural background As the participants e..g grossman (1981) - Germans working with German Participants. Using indigenous researchers aids communication between researchers and participants and helps prevent misunderstandings e.g. of instructions. This means that there is an excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated successfully, increasing the validity of the study
• One strength of the studies is the use of indigenous researchers: counterpoint

  this has not been true of all cross-cultural attachment research, e.g. Americans Morelli and Tronick (1991) investigated the Efe in Zaire. this means that some cross cultural attachment research may have communication errors and hence lacks validity
• One limitation is the impact of confounding variables


  Studies conducted in different countries may not be matched for sample characteristics e.g. studies in different countries may use children of different age and social classes. Environmetal variables may also differ E.g. using smaller rooms which might encourage babies to explore more. This means that studies assessing attachment types carried out in different countries may tell us little about cultural differences in attachment
• another limitation is imposing a test designed in one culture (imposed etic)


  using a test (the strange situation) in a different cultural context from the one for which it was designed may be meaningless. the strange situation was designed in the US where a lack of affection at reunion represents insecure attachment. however in Germany it would be seen as a sign of independence. this means that it may be meaningless to compare attachment behaviours across countries
• one limitation is competing explanations

  the reasons for similar patterns of attachment across cultures is explained by Bowlbys theory that attachment is innate, so secure attachment is the universal norm. however Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg suggest this similarity may be more a product of media representations of correct parenting. this means that its hard to know whether Bowlbys theory is true as there is a credible alternative explanation.