Cultural variations

• Cultural variations are the differences in norms and values that exist between people in different groups. In attachment research, we are concerned with the differences in the proportion of children of different attachment types.
• Aim: Van lizendoor and Kroonenberg conducted a meta-analysis to look at the proportions of secure, IAA and IRA attachment across a range of countries to assess cultural variation. They also looked at differences within the same culture to get an idea of intracultural variations.
• Procedure: Their meta-analysis summarised findings from 8 countries: UK, US, Sweden, China, Israel, Japan, Holland, and Germany. They examined 32 studies and consulted nearly 2000 strange situation classifications in total (2000 participants in total).
• Results: The results were all combined an analysed together, weighting each study for its sample size. They found that in all countries secure attachment was the most common, varying from 75% in the UK to 50% in China. So secure attachment is the norm in numerous cultures supporting Bowlby's suggestion that attachment is innate and universal. The average findings were consistent with Ainsworth's original research. The average findings were consistent with Ainsworth's original research. The average results were: secure 65%, avoidant 21%, resistant 14% (A = 70% secure, 15% IAA and IRA).
• Continuing results: IRA was overall the least common attachment type (3% in Britain to 30% in Israel), IAA was the most common in Germany (35% and least in Japan 5% Cultural practices have an influence on attachment types individualist cultures bring up their children as more independent (Britain has the highest % secure, with IAA>IRA, Germany have a high % of Ira and small % IRA) and collectivist cultures may focus on higher dependent behaviours (e.g. Japan have higher IRA and low % of IAA).
• Continuing results: Intra cultural variations was nearly 1.5 times greater than cross-cultural variations in the USA one study found 46% secure attachments and another found 90%; one of their Japanese studies showed no AA babies, whereas the second found around 20%, which is similar to Ainsworth's original findings.
• The researcher's speculated that this was linked to differences in socio-economic factors and levels of stress that varied between samples used within each country. However, the research also shows that cultural practices clearly have in influence on attachment types - Individualist cultures bring up their children as more independent, collectivist cultures may focus on higher dependent behaviours.
• Individualistic cultures are cultures where the focus is on the individual fulfilling their own destiny, following their own individual path and making decisions for themselves. They are cultures where relationships are mainly driven by individual wishes and ambitions and the only person the individual is accountable to (apart from the law and government), is themselves and the other person in the relationship. Examples of countries that are individualistic are UK, USA, Japan, Russia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Sweden and Netherlands
• Collectivist cultures are cultures where the focus is on the wider family and community and the individual is an intrinsic part of this collective dynamic. Relationships are more often driven by the wishes of family groups and commitment to the wider community and accountability is not only to the law and government, but a group of elders who are familial and social. These people tend to dictate the way a relationship operates between two people. Examples of countries that are collectivists are China, India, Germany, Israel, South Africa, Africa, Iran and Iraq.
• Another weakness of research into cultural variation, is that the strange situation was designed by an American researcher based on a British theory. There is a question whether Anglo-American theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures. Trying to apply a theory or technique from one culture to another is known as an imposed etic. E.g. Grossman and Grossman showed that in the UK a lack of separation anxiety and pleasure on reunion, signalling Insecure avoidant behaviour in the strange situation, is an imposed etic.
• continuing weakness: designed by an American researcher In Germany, this behaviour might be seen more as independence than avoidance and not a sign of insecurity with that cultural context. This clearly is a weakness of the research as the theory is too rooted in American culture to be applied to other cultures. So, the results may tell us less about cultural variations in attachment than previously thought.
• Another weakness of the research into cultural variations of attachment is that it may be too simplistic. For example, the study claimed to study cultural variation when in compared countries and not cultures. Within any country there are many distinct cultures each with different childrearing practices. One sample might overrepresent people in poverty. The stress of this may impact childrearing and hence attachment.
• Continuing weakness: too simplistic An analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi found that distributions of attachment types in Tokyo were similar to Western studies, but a rural sample had an over-representation of insecure-resistant infants.This clearly is a weakness of the study because it means comparisons between countries may have little meaning. The particular cultural characteristics (caregiving styles) of the sample need to be specified. We should exercise great caution in assuming that an individual sample is representative of a particular cultures.
• Continuing weakness: too simplistic So the results may tell us less about cultural variations in attachment than previously thought.
• weakness: undermining evidence for the conclusion of the study from other research. E.g. according to Bowlby's theory, the reason for universal similarities in how attachments form is because attachment is an innate mechanism, unaffected by culture. At least some of the cultural similarities may be explained by the effects of mass media, which spread ideas about parenting.This clearly is a weakness of the conclusion, as the cultural similarities may not be due to innate biological influences, but because of our increasingly global culture.
• strength: research methods used. E.g. combining the results of attachment studies carried out in different countries equals a large sample e.g., nearly 2000 in Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's study. This is a strength of the research study; large sample increase the internal validity of the results by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology/ very unusual participants.
• Continuing strength: research methods used Also the results are likely to be externally valid as they will apply to the other children in the country and so we can be more certain about cultural variations of attachment, so supporting the study.
• Continuing weakness: undermining evidence for the conclusion So from the research, it is not possible to definitively conclude the reason for cultural similarities in attachment.