Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT - VAN IJZENDOORN - Coggle Diagram
CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT - VAN IJZENDOORN
Van Ijzendoorm study
Meta-analysis of 32 studies using the strange situation that aimed to investigate cultural variations in attachment
Research was used from 8 cultures + the percentages of children in each culture falling into each category was compared
They found that secure attachment was the most common across all cultures - this suggests that secure attachment = a global pattern, not just specific to the USA
Insecure Avoidant - most common in Germany + lest common in Japan
They also found that the variation within cultures was 1.5 times greater than the variation between cultures
These findings suggest that attachment is biological + innate as similar patterns were found across cultures
Grossman + Grossman study
Investigated why German infants tended to be classified as insecure avoidant
They believe that this is due to differences in childbearing practices where in Germany parents promote interpersonal distance between infant + parent
German infants therefore do not engage in proximity seeking behaviour as thus appear insecure avoidant
This shows that due to cultural differences securely attached children may be incorrectly interpreted which raises issues about the strange situation
Takahashi study
Investigated 60 middle class Japanese infants + their mothers + found similar results for secure attachment as Ainsworth
However, they found no insecure-avoidant infants but a high number of insecure-resistant
Japanese infants were very distressed when left alone with 90% of experiments having to be stopped early
This shows that in Japan, infants rarely experience separation from their mother so are very distressed in the strange situation + appear insecure avoidant
Cross cultural research - the impact of confounding variables
Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews/meta-analyses
Sample characteristics e.g. poverty, social class + urban/rural makeup can confound results, as can the age of participants studied in different countries
Environmental factors can also confound results - e.g. size of room/availability of interesting toys
Babies might appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms with attractive toys, compared to large/bare rooms
Less visible proximity seeking because of room size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant
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
Similarities between findings may be explained by the mass media
Van Izjendoorn stated that similar TV + parenting books across the globe might be the reason for cultural similarities
This results to the idea that attachment may not be innate
Van Ijzendoorns study = Large sample size
2000 babies + their primary attachment figure were used in this meta-analysis which increases internal validity of the study as it reduces the impact of anomalous results
However, some samples were very small (China = 36 children) meaning it would be unwise to generalise the findings to all Chinese children
Incorrect Lables
Some children may be labelled incorrectly
E.g. children who have been in day care may appear to be insecurely avoidant because they are used to being separated from their mother + therefore show little reaction when the mother leaves the room
Also children from other cultures have been mislabelled
E.g. Japanese children show intense distress on separation + are often labelled insecure resistant when in fact this is simply a result of parenting + the strange situation basing the definition of secure attachment on American culture