Cultural Variations in Attachment

Describe Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's research.

-meta-analysis of 32 studies using SS

-research from 8 diff countries used (western USA, UK, Germany) + (Non-western Japan, China, Israel)

-used 1990 children

-found secure attachment was most common type

-western had more insecure avoidant + non-western had more insecure resistant

-variations within cultures was 1 1/2 greater than between cultures

-shows there are universal (potentially innate) characteristics in infant-caregiver interactions and variations in insecure attachments show culture plays some part as some cultures have higher levels of insecure attachment

-shows its wrong to think of any culture using the same child rearing practises

Evaluate strength of research into cultural variation

-uses SS as a research tool

-SS found to have a high inter-rater reliability of 94% as its a standardised piece of research which is easily replicable with controlled conditions

-as its a meta-analysis the replications might not be exact but with a high inter-rater reliability the attachment type observed would be the same regardless of who is observing

Evaluate cultural bias of the research

-weakness is that SS is example of ethnocentric research being designed in America based on american ideals of attachment

-Rothbaum did research where american mothers said if their child called to them during naptime it would be negative behaviour whereas japanese mothers saw this as a positive sign of secure attachment

-shows findings by Van lack external validity as incorrect to assume japan has high levels of insecure attachment than UK just because clingy behaviour has been misinterpreted to be insecure

Evaluate population validity of research

-lack population validity

-27/32 studies carried out in western countries with only 1 in China + 2 Japan and none in African countries

-shows that study isn't truly cross-cultural due to lack of non-western cultures where child rearing practises may be expressed in different ways