Cultural variations

Who is the key study for this? AO1

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg

Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s aim AO1

To investigate the cultural differences in attachment types

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s method AO1

• Conducted a large-scale meta analysis where they examined 32 (15 in USA) Strange Situation studies across 8 countries

• Yielded results for nearly 2,000 children

• Data was meta-analysed, results being combined & weighted for sample size

Findings AO1

• More variation within countries than between countries eg one study found 46% securely attached children in USA & another found 90%

• Secure attachment was the most common type across all countries

• Insecure resistant was the least common across all countries

• Insecure avoidant seen the least in Japan (5.2%) due to collectivist culture where infants are rarely separated from caregivers but seen most in Germany (35%) due to emphasis on independence

Other studies that show cultural variation in attachment

• Simonella et al - conducted a study in Italy &

Van Ijzendoorn & kroonenberg strengths AO3

• P - meta analysis

• E - as 32 strange situation studies were used across 8 countries, the sample size is very large (nearly 2,000 children). This increases internal validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or very unusual participants. There is also less chance of bias confounding due to the use of secondary data as researchers haven’t carried out the research themselves & can’t have influenced the outcome in anyway.

• T - This increases the reliability of the findings as a large number of studies analysed statistically increases the robustness of data (known as statistical power). Also it has high population validity & external validity due to the large sample size from different cultures, meaning it’s possible to generalise to the wider population

• HOWEVER meta-analyses are very time consuming & expensive so they may not be the most time/cost effective research method. Also The use of secondary data means that the researchers cannot be 100% confident as to the degree of precision exercised by the original researchers & they have no control over how key variables are operationalised, which limits internal validity to an extent

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg limitations AO3

• P - although sample size is large, it may lack cultural representation

• E - claimed to study cultural variations whereas the comparisons were between countries & not cultures. Within any country there are many different cultures, each with different child-care practices which they didn’t take into account - rather generalised one sample to a whole country. Also, the number of participants used for each country were significantly disproportionate eg in China where only 36 children were used in comparison to 2000 sample size) &majority of studies came from western nations eg USA, UK, germany. There was no data from African countries or Southeast Asia & very few collectivist cultures

• T - . In reality, the findings reflect Western sampling bias, making it difficult to generalise results to truly diverse cultural practices around child-rearing.

• P - variation within cultures was 1.5 times greater than variation between countries.

  E - intra-cultural differences could be attributed to variations in socioeconomic status, education, or parenting styles. For instance, in the United States, some studies focused on middle-class families, while others included families from lower-income backgrounds. These groups may differ significantly in caregiving practices, levels of parental stress, or access to support networks — all of which can affect attachment outcomes.

  T - highlights an essential methodological issue: subcultures exist within cultures, and each may promote distinct child-rearing norms. Therefore, it is overly simplistic to interpret attachment classifications at the national level without considering internal diversity. This further challenges the assumption that the Strange Situation provides a universally valid measure of attachment, even within a single country.