CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
VAN IJZENDOORN & KROONENBERG’S RESEARCH (1988)
AIM:
To look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation
PROCEDURE:
32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation was used
These were conducted in 8 countries (15 of the studies were in the US)
Yielded results for 1,990 children (of which the data was meta-analysed)
FINDINGS:
In all countries secure-attachment was the most common classification (however the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China)
In individualistic cultures, rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth’s original sample, but collectivist cultures differed more greatly
Insecure-avoidant was most commonly identified in Germany, and least commonly in Japan
Insecure-resistant was the least common in most countries (3% in UK, 30% in Israel)
Variations in results in the same country were 150% greater than those between countries
OTHER STUDIES OF CULTURAL VARIATIONS
AN ITALIAN STUDY:
76, 12-month olds assessed via the Strange Situation
50% were secure, 36% insecure-avoidant (lower rate if secure attachment than usual, potentially due to high rates of childcare from very young)
Suggests that cultural changes can make a difference to patterns of secure and insecure attachment
A KOREAN STUDY:
87 children assessed via the Strange Situation
Overall patterns of attachment were similar to that in most other countries, with most babies being classified as secure
Only one baby was identified as insecure-avoidant
This distribution is similar to that of Japan (this may be due to them having similar child-rearing styles)
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal
However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type
EVALUATION
Research Support
→ INDIGENOUS RESEARCHERS
One strength of the research is that most of the studies were conducted by indigenous researchers (those from the same cultural backgrounds as the pps).
For example, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team.
This kind of research means that many of the potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided (such as difficulty in understanding language). Difficulties can also include bias because of one nation’s stereotypes of the another.
This means that it’s highly likely that researchers and participants communicated successfully, which enhances the validity of the data collected.
However, this has not been true for all cross-cultural attachment research.
For example, Morelli & Tronick were outsiders from America when they studied patterns of attachment.
Their data may have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from participants outside of their own culture.
This means that some countries may be affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication.
Conflicting Evidence
→ CONFOUNDING VARIABLES
One limitation of cross-cultural research is the impact of confounding variables on findings.
Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses.
Sample characteristics such as poverty or social class can confound results. Environmental variables might also differ between studies and confound variables.
For example, the size of the room - babies might appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms compared to large, bare rooms.
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.
→ IMPOSED ETIC
Another limitation of cross-cultural research is in trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context.
Cross-cultural psychology includes the idea of emic (cultural uniqueness) and etic (cross-cultural universality).
An example of imposed etic in attachment research is the reunion stage in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation. In the US, a lack of affection at this stage may indicate an avoidant attachment, but in Germany, it may be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity.
This means that the behaviours measured by the Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures is meaningless.
VAN IJZENDOORN & KROONENBERG’S RESEARCH (1988)
AIM:
To look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation
PROCEDURE:
32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation was used
These were conducted in 8 countries (15 of the studies were in the US)
Yielded results for 1,990 children (of which the data was meta-analysed)
FINDINGS:
In all countries secure-attachment was the most common classification (however the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China)
In individualistic cultures, rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth’s original sample, but collectivist cultures differed more greatly
Insecure-avoidant was most commonly identified in Germany, and least commonly in Japan
Insecure-resistant was the least common in most countries (3% in UK, 30% in Israel)
Variations in results in the same country were 150% greater than those between countries
OTHER STUDIES OF CULTURAL VARIATIONS
AN ITALIAN STUDY:
76, 12-month olds assessed via the Strange Situation
50% were secure, 36% insecure-avoidant (lower rate if secure attachment than usual, potentially due to high rates of childcare from very young)
Suggests that cultural changes can make a difference to patterns of secure and insecure attachment
A KOREAN STUDY:
87 children assessed via the Strange Situation
Overall patterns of attachment were similar to that in most other countries, with most babies being classified as secure
Only one baby was identified as insecure-avoidant
This distribution is similar to that of Japan (this may be due to them having similar child-rearing styles)
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal
However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type
EVALUATION
Research Support
→ INDIGENOUS RESEARCHERS
One strength of the research is that most of the studies were conducted by indigenous researchers (those from the same cultural backgrounds as the pps).
For example, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team.
This kind of research means that many of the potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided (such as difficulty in understanding language). Difficulties can also include bias because of one nation’s stereotypes of the another.
This means that it’s highly likely that researchers and participants communicated successfully, which enhances the validity of the data collected.
However, this has not been true for all cross-cultural attachment research.
For example, Morelli & Tronick were outsiders from America when they studied patterns of attachment.
Their data may have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from participants outside of their own culture.
This means that some countries may be affected by bias and difficulty in cross-cultural communication.
Conflicting Evidence
→ CONFOUNDING VARIABLES
One limitation of cross-cultural research is the impact of confounding variables on findings.
Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses.
Sample characteristics such as poverty or social class can confound results. Environmental variables might also differ between studies and confound variables.
For example, the size of the room - babies might appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms compared to large, bare rooms.
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.
→ IMPOSED ETIC
Another limitation of cross-cultural research is in trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context.
Cross-cultural psychology includes the idea of emic (cultural uniqueness) and etic (cross-cultural universality).
An example of imposed etic in attachment research is the reunion stage in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation. In the US, a lack of affection at this stage may indicate an avoidant attachment, but in Germany, it may be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity.
This means that the behaviours measured by the Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures is meaningless.
