Cultural variations

• cultural variations

  = difference in norms and values that exist between people in different groups.
• Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg research

  = looked at proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation.

  • In all countries secure attachment was most common. But varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China.
  • in individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant were under 14% but in collectivist cultures rates where above 25%.
  • variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than between countries. eg: in USA one study found 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%.
• Italian study

  Simonelli conducted a study to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types matches those in previous studies.

  • researchers assessed 76 babies using strange situation, found 50% were secure, 36% insecure-avoidant. This is a lower rate of secure and a higher rate of insecure-avoidant attachment than in other studies.
  • suggests this is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use childcare.
• Korean study

  =to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies.

  Overall proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to those in most countries, with most being secure.

  • Distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan
  • Since Japan and Korea have quite similar child-rearing styles so this similarity might be explained in terms of child rearing style.
• conclusions

  = secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby's idea that attachment is innate and universal and this type is the universal norm.

  • but cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.
• Evaluation- indigenous researchers

  strength= most studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists.

  • indigenous psychologists are those from the same cultural background as the participants.
  • So this means that many problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided, such as researchers misunderstanding of the language used by participants or having difficulty communicating instructions to them. Difficulties also include bias and stereotypes.
  • so good chance that researcher and participants communicated successfully- enhancing the validity
• Evaluation- counterpoint

  However this is not true of all cross-cultural attachment research.

  • their data might have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from participants outside their own culture.
  • so data from some countries might have been affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication.
• Evaluation- confounding variables

  Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses.

  • sample characteristics such as poverty, social class and urban/rural make up and age can confound results.
  • environmental variable eg: size of the room+ the availability of interesting toys there- babies might appear to explore more in studies in small rooms with attractive toys rather than large bare rooms. Less visible proximity seeking because of room size.
  • don't tell us tell much about cross cultural patterns of attachment
• Evaluation- imposed etic

  limitation= trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context.

  • Imposed etic occurs when we impose an idea or technique that works in one cultural context to another. Eg: use of babies response to reunion to caregiver. In Britain and USA, a lack of affection on reunion may indicate an avoidant attachment. But in Germany such behaviour would be interpreted as independence.
  • so behaviours measured by strange situation may not have same meanings in different cultural contexts and comparing them is meaningless.