5. Cultural variation in attachment type

What is Individualism?

People focus more on independence, personal achievement and individuality. Children are encouraged to be independent, explore, rely less on the group. (UK,USA)

What is Collectivism?

People focus more on the group, family, interdependence. Children are encouraged to stay close to family, depend more on others. (Japan, China)

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg study

Aim: to see whether attachment types differ across cultures.

Procedure: They carried out a meta analysis, combined results from many previous studies. Analysed the results of 32 separate studies, which carried out in 8 countries. They used data from studies that used Ainsworth Strange Situations procedure to assess attachment types in 1990.

Findings:

-Secure- 75% Great Britain (British culture encourages a balance between independence and close caregiver relationships)

-Insecure-avoidant- 35% Germany (Germany is an individualistic culture that values independence, so avoidant behaviour may be seen as desirable rather than insecure)

-Insecure-resistant- 29% Israel (This is because Israel is a collectivist culture that values close family bonds and interdependence between infants and caregivers)

Conclusion:

Secure attachment is the most common one, across cultures, suggesting it might be universal. However, cultural differences influence the distribution of insecure attachment types.

Simonelli et al- An Italian Study

Procedure: assessed 76 babies aged 12 months, used ainsworth strange situation

Findings:

-50% secure attachment

-36% insecure avoidant attachment

-14%insecure resistant attachment

Conclusion: researchers suggest this may be because more Italian mothers work long hours and use professional childcare, meaning children become more comfortable with separation and strangers.

Evaluations for cultural variation in attachment types

P: methodology may be culturally bias. Ev: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg used ainsworth strange situation to assess attachment across many cultures, despite the procedure being developed in the USA using Western child-rearing norms. Ex: this creates imposed etic, as beh measured in strange situation may not mean the same thing in different cultures. Like in Germany, avoidant beh is viewed as independence rather than insecurity, whereas in Japan high separation anxiety may reflect normal close relationships between infants and caregivers. L: Lacks cultural validity, meaning conclusions about attachment types across cultures may not be fully accurate.

P: some countries were overrepresented in the meta analysis. Ev: In Van Ijzendoorn &Kroonenbergs study, 18/32 studies came from the USA, whereas countries such as Sweden only contributed one study. Ex: this creates a disproportionate sample, so finding may be more representative of American attachment patterns, than in other cultures. Researcher had more evidence to analyse attch beh in Serbian cultures, making finding for them more detailed and representative. Other studies may not have been analysed enough to accurately reflect the true distribution of attach types. L: lacks population validity, as some cultures were underrepresented.

P: use of indigenous psychologists. Ev: Many of the studies included in Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis were conducted by researchers from the same culture as the pp. Ex: Beneficial, as researchers are more likely to understand cultural norms and child rearing practices within their own culture. This reduces the risk of misinterpreting children’s beh during attachment assessment. L: Greater cultural validity and provide a more accurate understanding of attachment across different cultures.