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.