PSYCH; Cultural Variations

what’s meant by cultural variations

differences in norms and values that exist between people in different groups/cultures

e.g differences in the proportion of children of different attachment types

van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s (1988) aim of research

to assess cultural variations by looking at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant & insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries

and looked at differences within the same country to get idea of variations within a culture

procedure of van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s (1988) research

meta-analysis of 32 studies

located 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation has been used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types

conducted in 8 countries - 15 were in the US

overall; found results for 1,990 children

data of these 32 studies were meta analysed (results were combined and analysed together)

what does it mean by data for multiple studies were ‘meta-analysed’

results of the studies were combined and analysed together

findings of van IJzerndoorn & Kroonerberg (1988)

in all counties, secure attachment was most common but varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China

in individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment was similar to Aisnworth’s original sample (under 14%)

but in collectivist cultures (China,Japan&Israel) insecure-resistant rates were above 25%

which attachment type was found to be most common in all countries in van IJzerndoorn & Kroonbergs(1988) meta analysis research

secure attachment

but varied from 75% in Britain and 50% in China

what % of Britain was found to be secure

75%

what % of China was found be secure

50%

what did van Ijzerndoorn & Kroonberg found about individualistic cultures

rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth’s original sample - 14%

what did van IJzerndoorn & Kroonberg found about collectivist cultures

found China, Japan, Israel rates of insecure-resistant attachment were above 25%

what did Simonelli et al (2014) aim

conducted a study in Italy whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still match the findings in previous studies

who conducted the Italian study

Simonelli et al (2014)

procedure of Simonelli et al (2014)

conducted a study in Italy

assessed 76 babies - aged 12 months

used the strange situation

findings of Simonelli et al (2014)

found 50% were secure and 36% were insecure-avoidant

(lower rates secure and higher rate of insecure-avoidant than found previously studies)

suggested this is bc increasing mothers of young children work long hours and use professional childcare

conc; attachment types vary in line w/ cultural change

what % of babies in Simonelli’s study were found to be ‘secure’

50%

what % of babies in Simonelli’s study were found to be ‘insecure-avoidant’

36%

what did Jin et al (2012) aim to do

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

who conducted the Korean study

Jin et al (2012)

procedure of Jin et al (2012)

conducted a study in Korea

assessed 87 babies using the strange situation

findings + conc of Jin et al (2012)

overall proportions of insecure + secure babies were similar to those in most countries

most babies were secure

more of those found to be insecurerly attached were resistant and only one baby was avoidant

similar in Japan

conc; Japan and Korea have similar child-rearing types, this explains the similarity of attachment types found in terms of child-rearing style

which country did Korea have similar to findings to

Japan

most babies classified ‘insecure-resistant’

one baby was ‘avoidant’

due to similar child-rearing styles in Japan and korea

conc of all cultural variation studies

secure attachment seems to be the norm in wide range of cultures

supports Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal

(secure is the universal norm)

also shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type

% of Britain classified as insecure-resistant

below 10%

% of Britain as insecure - avoidant

30%

% of Britain as secure

75%

one strength of cultural variations research is that most studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists

P; most studies were conducted by psychologists from the same cultural background as the p’s

E; For example, van IJzerndoorn& Kroonenberg (1988) included research by a German team (Grossmann et al (1981) ) and Takashi (1968) who’ Japanese.

E; This means that many of the potential problems cross-cultural research can be avoided e.g misunderstandings of language used by p’s or difficulty explaining instructions to p’s or stereotypes of another culture.

L; Therefore, there’s excellent chance that researchers and p’s communicated successfully - enhancing the validity of the data collected.

one strength of van ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s (1988) is that it has high internal reliability

E; Van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg conducted a meta analysis of 32studies across 8 different countries, analyzing attachment data for nearly 2000 infants.

E; By using a meta analysis, they combined results from a large number of studies, which increases the statistical power and reduces the impact of anomalies found in any single, small-scale study and all 32 studies used the standardised ‘Strange Situation’ procedure so it allowed for a direct, consistent comparison across different cultures.

L; Therefore, the large combined sample size ensures the findings are highly credible and reliable.

one limitation of cross cultural research is the impact of confounding variables on findings (peel)

E; Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when compared in meta-analyses - sample characteristics such as poverty, social class and urban/rural make-up can confound results. environmental variables might also differ between studies and confound results.

E; 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

L’ Thus, reducing the internal validity of the findings.

one limitation of cross-cultural research is trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another.

E; For example, the use babies’ response to reunion with caregiver in the ‘strange situation’. In Britain and US, lack of affection on reunion may indicate an avoidant attachment but in Germany this behaviour would be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity.

E; This means that the behaviours measured by Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts and comparing them across cultures is meaningless

L; Therefore, the study may lack cultural validity, as it does not truly measure attachment quality in non-western cultures but rather how much they conform to America standards.