AO3 - Cultural Variations of Attachment

Cards (4)

  • Van Ijzendoorn’s meta-analysis of cultural variations of attachment could be argued to have high population validity as it was a meta-analysis of 32 strange situation studies, using a large sample of 2000 infants. Therefore, it is easier to generalise the findings to the rest of the target population, increasing the external validity of the research investigating cultural variations in attachment types.
  • However, critics would point out that although there was a large number of studies combined for this meta-analysis, the research can be criticised for culture bias as over half (18 out of 32) of the research studies were carried out in the US (individualistic, Western Culture) and only 5 of the studies were carried out in collectivist (non-western) cultures. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings across all cultures when explaining the different types of attachment.
  • Moreover, the strange situation tool used in this study has been criticised for Imposed Etic. It is based on American child-rearing practices and ignores practices in other cultures (that aren’t American) for example the lack of separation anxiety indicates an insecure-avoidant attachment type, in Germany this may be seen in a positive light as independence rather than avoidance or insecurity. Therefore, the Strange Situation may not be appropriate to measure attachment types across all cultures when investigating cultural variations in attachment.
  • A criticism is that the meta-analysis research lacks ecological validity as the 32 studies of the Strange Situation were carried out in a controlled environment. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to generalise the findings to real life attachment types as the infant may not behave how they usually do in their natural environment, for example, they may explore the room less than they usually would as they feel uncomfortable or shy in an unfamiliar environment. Therefore, lowering the external validity of the research into cultural variations in attachment types.