Cultural variations in attachment

What was the aim of Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research on cultural variations?

A study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation.

They also looked at the differences within the same country to find the variations within a culture.

What was the procedure of Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study on cultural variation?

They located 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types.

These were conducted in 8 countries - 15 in US

The studies yielded results for 1990 children.

The data for these 32 studies were meta-analysed (The results of the studies were combined and analysed together, weighting each study for its sample size)

What were the findings of Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study on cultural variation?

• A wide variation between proportions of attachment types in different studies

• In all countries, secure attachment was most common (BUT, the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China)

• In individualist cultures, insecure-resistant attachment was similar to Ainsworth’s original sample (under 14%)

• In collectivist cultures (China, Japan and Israel), insecure resistant attachment was above 25%

• Variations between results WITHIN the same country were 150% greater than those BETWEEN countries. E.g. in the US, one study found 46% secure but the other found 90%!

What was the aim of Simonelli et al’s study of cultural variation?

She conducted a study in Italy to see whether proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in previous studies.

What was the procedure of Simonelli et al’s study of cultural variation?

She assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using the Strange Situation

What were the findings of Simonelli et al’s study of cultural variation?

50% were secure

36% were insecure-avoidant

What were the conclusions of Simonelli et al’s study of cultural variation?

This is a lower rate of secures and a higher rate of insecure-avoidants than has been found in many studies.

This is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare

The findings suggest that patterns of attachment type are not static but vary with cultural change.

What was the aim of Jin’s study on cultural variation?

To compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies

What was the procedure of Jin’s study on cultural variation?

The strange situation was used to assess 87 babies

What were the findings of Jin’s study on cultural variation?

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

BUT, only one baby was avoidant!

What was the conclusion of Jin’s study on cultural variation?

This distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types in Japan.

This similarity is explained by Japan and Korea having similar child-rearing styles

What is the conclusion of ALL studies on cultural variation?

Secure attachment is the norm in most cultures → supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal.

BUT, cultural practices also have an influence on attachment type!

What is a strength of research into cultural variation?

Most studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists

Indigenous psychologists means those from the same cultural background as the participants.

E.g. Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team + Takahashi who is Japanese.

Thus, many of the potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided, such as researchers’ misunderstandings of the language used by participants.

This means that there is good chance that researcher’s and participants communicated successfully - enhancing the validity of data collected.

COUNTERPOINT

This is not true for all cross-cultural attachment research.

Morelli and Tronick were outsiders from America when they studied child-rearing and patterns of attachment in Zaire.

Their data might have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from pps outside their own culture.

This means that data from some countries might have been affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication.

What is a limitation of research in cultural variations?

Confounding variables

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

Sample characteristics such as social class + age can confound results.

Environmental variables can also differ between studies and confound results. E.g. the size of the room → Babies might explore more in studies conducted in small rooms → Less visible proximity-seeking because the room size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant.

This means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment.

What is another limitation of research into cultural variations?

Imposed etic - Trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context

E.g. the use of babies’ response to reunion with the caregiver in the Strange Situation.

In Britain + US, lack of affection on reunion may indicate an avoidant attachment. But in Germany, such behaviour would be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity.

Thus, that part of the Strange Situation may not work in Germany.

This means that behaviours measured by the Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts.