Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What’s Culture bias?

a bias that assumes and exaggerates cultural similarities/assumes they are profoundly different

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What’s Ethnocentrism/Ethnocentric?

a cultural bias that implies superiority of one's own culture (usually Western) → western = normal

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What’s Imposed etic?

studying one culture and then applying research to all cultures as if the behaviour is the same

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Who studies cultural variations in attachment types?

What was the method, and general patterns

Van Ijzendoorn (1988):

• Large scale M-A of 2000 infants in 32 strange situation studies from 8 countries

• General patterns:

  • Overall results = Secure (65%), Avoidant (21%), Resistant (14%)

  • Secure = most common in all countries

  • IR = mostly least common (except Israel + Japan)

  • IA = more common in individual W cultures, IR = more common in collectivist, non-W cultures

  • 6/8 country’s findings = proportionally consistent w/ Ainsworth

  • More variation WITHIN countries than B/W (1.5x more)

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the USA’s results?

Secure: 65%

Avoidant: 21%

Resistant: 14%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the UK’s results?

Secure: 75%

Avoidant: 22%

Resistant: 3%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Holland’s results?

Secure: 67%

Avoidant: 26%

Resistant: 7%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Germany’s results?

Secure: 57%

Avoidant: 35%

Resistant: 8%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Japan’s results?

Secure: 68%

Avoidant: 5%

Resistant: 27%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the China’s results?

Secure: 50%

Avoidant: 25%

Resistant: 25%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Israel’s results?

Secure: 64%

Avoidant: 7%

Resistant: 29%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Sweden’s results?

Secure: 74%

Avoidant: 22%

Resistant: 4%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What conclusions can we make from Van Ijzendoor (1988)?

• S = most common → evidence for universal preferred attachment style → potentially bio basis

• Variations in parenting may explain differences:

  • G fams encourage independent/non-clingy behaviour → infants = little distress in studies → more classed as IA

  • Jap: PC + babies rarely separated → extreme ‘resistance’ reactions to separation in studies

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What conclusions can we draw about research intro cultural variation on attachment?

• Research often follows the Strange Situation model, but this was designed in America about white middle class families

• Indigenous psychology would be a better approach, but then the results couldn't be directly comparable

• In Van Ijzendoorn's meta-analysis, 18/32 of the studies were conducted in America - Ethnocentrism + could change the average, making it look like the study may be closer to the original than it actually is - culture bias

• The sample was also still WIERD

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What is WIERD?

Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: Van Ijzendoorn (1988) strength

internal validity → standardised methodology → use of strange situation procedure → cross-cultural comparison → + high sample (2000 babies → anomalies have less impact on overall findings) → increases internal validity

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: not globally representative

Africa, South America, E. European socialist countries = not represented → Van Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg recognised more data from non-WIERD countries needed to for true understanding cultural variations in attachment

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: Overall findings are misleading

disproportionately high number of studies from USA (18/32), → may have distorted overall findings → many countries = represented by 1 or 2 studies → eg: Israel: 1 study = urban, 1 = agricultural town → agricultural = FAR higher IR → more variation within than b/w countries → means apparent consistency b/w cultures might not genuinely reflect how much attachment types vary culturally + maybe rural vs urban is more important distinction

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: ethnocentric

Applying Strange Situation procedures + behavioural categories = ethnocentric → judges + categorises infant behaviour according to categories developed from observations of white, MC, American babies → means non-American infant behaviour = judged by American standard → eg: infant exploring playroom by themselves = avoidant by American standards BUT valued as reflecting independence in Germany

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: Takahashi

Takahashi (1990) → Strange Situation w/ 60 MC Japanese infants/mothers → distinct cultural differences to Ainsworth (1978) → IA = 0%, IR = 32%, S = 68%, 90% of infant-alone steps= stopped bcs excessive infant anxiety + this situation = quite unnatural broke cultural norms → suggests that attachment types = NOT universal + cultural norms influence their expression → strange situation = culturally bound

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: Temporal validity

Van Ijzendoorn (1988) = almost 40 yrs ago → parenting styles changed a lot → Simonelli et al (2014): strange situation, modern Italian infants = sig. lower % of S, + higher IA, and → argue this change = bcs healthy coping mechanisms for modern world where mothers = more frequently away bcs work, so w/ child minders → Categorisations in Ainsworth + Van Ijzendoorn lack temp val → impose social norms of time