Contemporary Cassibba et al (2013)

Intro - Aim

• Rosalinda Cassibba conducted a meta-analysis to investigate whether the majority of Italian children and adults are securely attached.

• The study also aimed to examine whether Italian adults show lower levels of unresolved attachment, differences between clinical and non-clinical samples, and potential gender differences in attachment types.

AO1 (Sample)

• The meta-analysis included 32 studies of Italian attachment.

• The sample consisted of:

  • 627 infants from 17 Strange Situation studies

  • 2258 adults from 50 Adult Attachment Interview studies

• Only studies using the SSP (for children) and AAI (for adults) were included.

• Studies required inter-rater reliability above 0.85 to ensure accurate classification.

AO3 (Generalisability)

• The large combined sample increases generalisability, as findings are based on a wide range of participants.

• Including published and unpublished studies reduces publication bias, making the sample of studies more representative.

• However, findings are limited to Italian culture, so may not generalise to other cultures.

AO1 (Methodology)

• The study used a meta-analysis, analysing data from multiple existing studies.

• Researchers ensured all child studies used the “gold standard” SSP and adult studies used the AAI.

• Standardised measures were used to allow direct comparison between studies.

AO3 (Validity)

• Using SSP and AAI increases validity, as attachment is measured using consistent and standardised methods.

• This ensures comparisons between studies are accurate, increasing internal validity.

• However, researchers relied on secondary data, meaning they could not control how each study was conducted, reducing validity.

AO1 (Procedure)

• Researchers searched PsycINFO and Italian sources using key terms such as “Italian” and “Strange Situation Procedure”.

• Additional studies were obtained from journals, dissertations and publications.

• The final sample included:

  • 17 SSP studies (627 infants)

  • 50 AAI studies (2258 adults)

• Data was extracted and statistically analysed.

• Italian attachment data was compared with US data from Van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988)

AO3 (Reliability)

• Using SSP and AAI increases reliability, as they are standardised procedures used consistently across studies.

• High inter-rater reliability (>0.85) ensures consistent classification of attachment types.

• However, researchers cannot be sure all original studies followed procedures identically, reducing reliability.

AO1 (Results)

• The majority of non-clinical Italian children were securely attached (53%), with 33% avoidant and 14% resistant.

• Compared to American samples, Italian children showed higher levels of insecure-avoidant attachment.

• Clinical and at-risk children showed lower secure attachment (32%) and higher insecure attachment (40% avoidant, 28% resistant).

• In adults, the most common attachment type was secure-autonomous (59%), followed by dismissing (22%) and preoccupied (19%).

• Unresolved attachment was lower in non-clinical Italian adults (10%) compared to USA (18%).

• However, at-risk adults showed much higher levels of unresolved attachment (around 40%).

AO3 (Application)

• Findings support universality of attachment, as secure attachment is most common.

• Cultural differences (e.g. higher avoidant attachment) can be explained by child-rearing practices and cultural values.

• Lower unresolved attachment in Italy may reflect strong family support and Catholic values.

• Findings can be used to identify at-risk families and improve interventions.

AO1 (Ethics)

• The study uses data from SSP and AAI, which involve distress from separation and sensitive questions about relationships and trauma.

• Cross-cultural use of these methods may increase distress in some groups.

AO3 (Ethics)

• Ethical issues may be greater in cultures where separation or discussing trauma is less common.

• However, as this was a meta-analysis, no new participants were directly exposed to harm.

• Despite this, using data from potentially distressing procedures still raises ethical concerns.