Cross cultural variations in attachment
Bowlby believed that attachments were innate so the need to form this initial bond should be genetic and as a result experienced by the infants of every culture. However, the kind of attachment formed may vary between societies and between cultures depending upon the child rearing techniques seen most desirable within that community. This section (a favourite for examiners) looks at different patterns of attachment found in other cultures and possible explanations for the differences.
Ainsworth carried out most of her research in the USA but others have found broad agreement with her findings in other parts of the World (worth mentioning in an essay!). The ones I’ll mention below are exceptions in that they are different and we shall consider possible explanations for this.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) carried out a meta-analysis combining the findings of 32 other studies of the strange situation from a variety of countries and based on the observation of over 2000 children.
Note: if the question asks you to describe the procedure of a study into cross-cultural differences in attachment describe the strange situation but emphasise it was carried out in a variety of countries.
Findings
The most notable finding was the similarity in types of attachment across most countries. Secure attachment is the norm in the overwhelming majority of cultures.
Bowlby believed that attachments were innate so the need to form this initial bond should be genetic and as a result experienced by the infants of every culture. However, the kind of attachment formed may vary between societies and between cultures depending upon the child rearing techniques seen most desirable within that community. This section (a favourite for examiners) looks at different patterns of attachment found in other cultures and possible explanations for the differences.
Ainsworth carried out most of her research in the USA but others have found broad agreement with her findings in other parts of the World (worth mentioning in an essay!). The ones I’ll mention below are exceptions in that they are different and we shall consider possible explanations for this.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) carried out a meta-analysis combining the findings of 32 other studies of the strange situation from a variety of countries and based on the observation of over 2000 children.
Note: if the question asks you to describe the procedure of a study into cross-cultural differences in attachment describe the strange situation but emphasise it was carried out in a variety of countries.
Findings
The most notable finding was the similarity in types of attachment across most countries. Secure attachment is the norm in the overwhelming majority of cultures.
|
Findings
The most notable finding was the similarity in types of attachment across most countries. Secure attachment is the norm in the overwhelming majority of cultures. However these three countries stood out from the rest. Germany has a high percentage of avoidant attachments and both Israel and Japan a much higher than normal percentage of resistant |
|
Evaluation
Despite the large number of studies combined in this meta-analysis over half (18 of the 32) were still US. Only five of the 32 were carried out in *collectivist cultures.
We also have the issue of imposed etic. The strange situation was designed by an American, using American children for use on other Americans. Many researchers have therefore questioned whether it can possibly be suitable for testing the children of other cultures. Mary Ainsworth assumed that separation anxiety was an indication of secure attachment and this may be the case in some countries such as Britain and the USA. However, separation anxiety in other societies and cultures may represent other factors. The strange situation may therefore not always be a suitable measure of attachment and may in fact be culturally specific. This development of a test for one culture, then being used in unfamiliar cultures is referred to in psychology as imposed etic, and is most controversial in the testing of IQ.
Rothbum et al (2000) suggest that although the need for protection appears to be universal (the same across all cultures) other factors differ. They believe psychologists should be working at an emic level, producing theories of attachment tailored to fit each individual culture. For example, the Japanese have the concept of ‘amae’ (depending on another’s love) which according to Doi (1973) leads to a sense of oneness between mother and child.
This might explain why so many infants develop a seemingly more clingy resistant attachment style and become so distressed when separated from mum.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg report that differences in attachment within a culture are far greater than those found between cultures. They conclude that it is wrong to think of everyone in a culture having the same practices. Within a culture there are many sub-cultures, all with their own way of rearing children. These may be ethnically or racially based but also may be class specific, for example in the UK the so called ‘middle classes’ having different child-rearing techniques to the ‘working classes.’ The upper classes traditionally have left child rearing to nannies!
However, in support of the strange situation, Bee (1999) believes that the most striking feature of the cross cultural studies is their similarity. With the exception of the countries mentioned earlier, most countries do seem to have a similar pattern with most infants forming secure attachments and the rest being split equally between avoidant and resistant.
Explanations of these cross cultural differences
Israeli children were reared in a Kibbutz so were used to being separated from their mother. As a result they do not show anxiety when their mother leaves. However, they are not used to strangers so get distressed when left alone with the stranger. This explains the high percentage of resistant behaviour. Fox (1977) tested children in the strange situation using either their mother or the metapelet (Kibbutzim nurse). The children appeared similarly attached to both except for reunion behaviour where they were more pleased to see mother.
Japanese children show similar patterns of attachment to the Israeli children but for different reasons. Japanese children are very rarely left by their mother. So the distress they show when she leaves is probably more due to shock than it is to insecure attachment. The distress they show when left alone with the stranger is also more likely to be due to absence of the mother.
The German study highlights a high percentage of avoidant behaviour, typical of independent children. This is not surprising given that Grossmann et al (1985) say that German parents seek ‘independent, non-clingy infants, who do not make demands on parents, but obey their commands.’ Ah if only it were true in Britain!
Being able to explain the cultural differences is very useful AO2 stuff.
But don’t forget to emphasise the similarity between most other cultures!
Despite the large number of studies combined in this meta-analysis over half (18 of the 32) were still US. Only five of the 32 were carried out in *collectivist cultures.
We also have the issue of imposed etic. The strange situation was designed by an American, using American children for use on other Americans. Many researchers have therefore questioned whether it can possibly be suitable for testing the children of other cultures. Mary Ainsworth assumed that separation anxiety was an indication of secure attachment and this may be the case in some countries such as Britain and the USA. However, separation anxiety in other societies and cultures may represent other factors. The strange situation may therefore not always be a suitable measure of attachment and may in fact be culturally specific. This development of a test for one culture, then being used in unfamiliar cultures is referred to in psychology as imposed etic, and is most controversial in the testing of IQ.
Rothbum et al (2000) suggest that although the need for protection appears to be universal (the same across all cultures) other factors differ. They believe psychologists should be working at an emic level, producing theories of attachment tailored to fit each individual culture. For example, the Japanese have the concept of ‘amae’ (depending on another’s love) which according to Doi (1973) leads to a sense of oneness between mother and child.
This might explain why so many infants develop a seemingly more clingy resistant attachment style and become so distressed when separated from mum.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg report that differences in attachment within a culture are far greater than those found between cultures. They conclude that it is wrong to think of everyone in a culture having the same practices. Within a culture there are many sub-cultures, all with their own way of rearing children. These may be ethnically or racially based but also may be class specific, for example in the UK the so called ‘middle classes’ having different child-rearing techniques to the ‘working classes.’ The upper classes traditionally have left child rearing to nannies!
However, in support of the strange situation, Bee (1999) believes that the most striking feature of the cross cultural studies is their similarity. With the exception of the countries mentioned earlier, most countries do seem to have a similar pattern with most infants forming secure attachments and the rest being split equally between avoidant and resistant.
Explanations of these cross cultural differences
Israeli children were reared in a Kibbutz so were used to being separated from their mother. As a result they do not show anxiety when their mother leaves. However, they are not used to strangers so get distressed when left alone with the stranger. This explains the high percentage of resistant behaviour. Fox (1977) tested children in the strange situation using either their mother or the metapelet (Kibbutzim nurse). The children appeared similarly attached to both except for reunion behaviour where they were more pleased to see mother.
Japanese children show similar patterns of attachment to the Israeli children but for different reasons. Japanese children are very rarely left by their mother. So the distress they show when she leaves is probably more due to shock than it is to insecure attachment. The distress they show when left alone with the stranger is also more likely to be due to absence of the mother.
The German study highlights a high percentage of avoidant behaviour, typical of independent children. This is not surprising given that Grossmann et al (1985) say that German parents seek ‘independent, non-clingy infants, who do not make demands on parents, but obey their commands.’ Ah if only it were true in Britain!
Being able to explain the cultural differences is very useful AO2 stuff.
But don’t forget to emphasise the similarity between most other cultures!
