Cultural variation

• Van Ijendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

  Meta analysis 32 studies with over 2000  SS type classification, found cultural differences in attachment not overly large, except Israel and Japan the ratios of attachment types similar in all countries studied, global pattern similar to in USA, proves type B most ‘healthy’
• Tronick et al (1992)

  studied Efe tribe, live in extended family groups, infants looked after/breastfed by many but always slept with mother, all still showed PAF by 6 months despite communal life
• Grossmann and Grossmann (1991)

  German infants more insecurely classified than secure, German culture values interpersonal distance so infants do not proximity seek so appear insecure in SS
• Takahashi (1990)

  60 middle class infants and parents (Japanese), no evidence of type A and 32% type C, 90% infants reacted so bad to separation that studies had to be stopped after being left alone, children in Japan rarely separated from parents
• While cultures share similar rates, different patterns in attachment can be related to different attitudes and practices and countries
• While Bowlby believes universal attachment similarity may be due to innate mechanism (evolution), Van Ij and Kroon believe may be due to mass media spreading ideas about parenting, globalising certain childrearing cultures
• Van Ij and Kroon analysed countries (eg USA vs Japan) rather than cultures, one country may contain many cultures and therefore different childrearing ideas.

  • Van Ijendoorn and Sagi (2001) childrearing practices in Tokyo similar to the USA, but in rural Japan there was over representation of type C
• SS design based on American culture. While willingness to explore seen as healthy and secure, in Japan over-dependence seen as a secure attachment. SS is an imposed etic. While foreign kids may appear insecure to Americans, it may be seen as desirable in home country
• Rothbaum et al (2000)

  not only SS method but theory too rooted in American culture. Continuity hypothesis of healthy attachments going on to be explorative, independent, and able to regulate own emotions isn't seen as healthy or desirable in Japan, where inhibition of emotion and being group oriented is seen as desirable
• Rothbaum et al suggest a set of indigenous theories, explanations of attachment based on separate cultures
• Posada and Jacobs (2001)

  note a lot of evidence from China, Colombia, Germany, Israel, Japan, Norway to suggest a lot of universality in many childcare practices