Cultural Variations

• van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's research:


  Looked at proportions of secure, insecure-resistant and insecure-avoidant attachments across a range of countries to asses cultural variation.
• van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's research:


  Located 32 studies that had used the Strange Situation to assess the proportion of babies with different attachment types. These were conducted in 8 countries. The data from these 32 studies was meta-analysed.
• van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's findings:

  In all countries secure attachment was the most common. However the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China. In collectivist cultures, rates of insecure-resistant attachment were higher. Variation was 150% greater within a country than across countries.
• Simonelli et al. 


  Conducted a study in Italy to see the proportions of different attachment types in babies. They assed 76 babies aged 12 months using the Strange Situation.
• Simonelli et al.


  They found 50% were secure and 36% were insecure-avoidant. This is a lower rate of secure attachment and a higher rate of insecure-avoidant attachment than has been found in many studies. Researchers suggest this is because increasing numbers of mothers of young children work long hours and use professional childcare. This suggests patterns of attachment are not static but vary in line with cultural change.
• Mi Kyoung Ji et al.


  Conducted a study to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies. The overall proportions were similar to other studies, with most being secure. However, most of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only one was avoidant. This was similar to the distribution of attachment styles in Japan. Japan and Korea have a similar child-rearing style.
• Secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby's idea that attachment is innate and universal. However, the research also shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.
• A strength of the research is that most of the studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists (from the same cultural background). For example, van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team and a Japanese researcher. This avoids any problems like misunderstandings of the language or having difficulty communicating instructions to them. It also avoids bias of one nation's stereotypes of another. This enhances the validity of the data collected as the participants and researchers will have communicated successfully.
• A limitation is the impact of confounding variables. Studies conducted in different countries are usually not matched for methodology when they are compared in meta-analyses. Factors like poverty, age and social class and environmental factors like size of the room and availability of interesting toys can all confound results. for example, babies might appear to explore more in small rooms with attractive toys compared to large, bare rooms. This means that looking at attachment behaviour in non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment.
• A further limitation is in trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another (imposed etic). In Britain/USA lack of affection upon reunion may indeed indicate an avoidant attachment whereas in Germany such behaviour would be more likely interpreted as independence. This means that the behaviours measured by the Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures is meaningless.