Ainsworth & Cultural Variations

In this section:

• Ainsworth (1970) strange situation study – sensitive responsiveness
• Ainsworth’s types of attachment: secure, insecure avoidant, insecure resistant
• Main & Soloman (1986) disorganised attachment
• Main & Weston – strange situation may not measure attachment
• Cooper (2005) – useful applications
• Takashi – issues with using the strange situation in other cultures
• Kagan – temperament hypothesis
• Van IJsendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) – cultural variations of attachment
• Simonella et al (2014) attachment in Italy
• Understand the difference between collectivist cultures and individualist cultures

Key Research: Ainsworth, M. D. S. & Bell, S. (1970) Attachment, Exploration and Separation: Illustrated by the Behaviour of One year-olds in a Strange Situation

Sample:

Around 100 middle-class American infants and their mothers took part. Children were between 12-18 months

Research method:

This was a controlled observation in which participants were observed (from an adjoining room through a one-way mirror) as they participated in the ‘strange situation’.

Procedure:

Each phase of the procedure lasts 3 minutes and a session progresses as follows:

1. Mother enters room with child, child explores for 3 minutes
2. A Stranger enters and joins the mother and infant, talks to mother
3. Mother leaves the infant with the stranger, stranger attempts to interact with child
4. Mother returns and the stranger leaves. 
5. Mother leaves child on their own
6. Stranger returns and interacts with the child
7. Mother returns and stranger leaves

The observers made notes every 15 seconds about the following behaviours:

• Proximity and contact-seeking behaviours – trying to stay close to the mother
• Exploration and secure base – how freely the child explores its environment using the caregiver as a safe base
• Stranger anxiety – signs of distress when a stranger approaches
• Separation anxiety – distress when the caregiver leaves
• Response to reunion – how the child behaves when caregiver returns

Results:

From her observations Ainsworth (Mary) found that children behaved in certain ways to the strange situation. From this she developed three types of attachments where children tended to follow certain patterns of behaviour:

Securely attached:

Exploration & Proximity – securely attached infants explored the unfamiliar environment, but returned to the mother at regular intervals. Separation behaviour – securely attached infants were subdued (quiet and concerned) when mother left. Stranger anxiety – when a stranger appears a securely attached infant will move closer to the mother and be wary of a stranger. They clearly prefer their mother to a stranger. Reunion behaviour – securely attached infants greet the mother positively when she returns and make physical contact with her.

This was the most common attachment with around 65-70% being classed as securely attached.

Insecure Avoidant:

Exploration & Proximity – infants did not seek proximity towards the mother when exploring the room. Separation anxiety – Insecure avoidant seemed unconcerned when the mother left. Stranger anxiety – unconcerned about a stranger being there and show little preference for the mother over a stranger. They often avoid both. Reunion behaviour – Insecure avoidant children show little reaction when the mother comes back.

Around 20-25% were classed as insecure avoidant.

Insecure Resistant:

Exploration & proximity – clingy behaviour i.e. unconcerned with exploring and far greater proximity seeking behaviour towards the mother. Separation anxiety – insecure resistant showed intense distress when separated from the mother. Stranger anxiety – intense distress around the stranger. Reunion behaviour – resist comfort from the mother by pushing her away.

This was the least common attachment style with only 3-5% being classed as insecure resistant.

This video shows an insecure resistant at 2:45 into the video and is the third child in the video.

Sensitive responsiveness: Ainsworth herself believed that the kind of attachment the child develops is due entirely to the mother.  Secure children have mothers who respond appropriately to the child’s needs by picking up on the signals.  Insecure children on the other hand have mothers that are less responsive and the attachments they develop are coping strategies that enable them to deal with this lack of response.

Evaluation:

Strengths:

Subsequent studies that have used the ‘Strange Situation’ have found it to be reliable and valid.

·    Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure and whether you can produce the same results if tested again. 

·    Validity refers to the extent to which the ‘Strange Situation’ actually measures what it is supposed to measure.

• External reliability: van ijzendoorn (1988) also found that secure attachment is the norm in the overwhelming majority of cultures. Average findings were consistent with Ainsworth’s original research – Secure 65% – Avoidant 21% – Resistant 14%. This shows that the strange situation can be used across cultures and produce similar results. This means that the strange situation has good external reliability.
• Inter-rater reliability: Ainsworth found that there were 94% agreement on the attachment types that were assigned by researchers. Ainsworth herself also tested inter-rater reliability (the extent to which different observers score a behaviour in a similar way).  This was also found to be very high. This was because the behavioural categories were easy to observe. In addition, the time sampling meant that the researchers could be focused for short intervals at a time, ensuring that noted down the behaviours accurately.
• Useful applications: Research from Ainsworth shed light on the importance of attachments. Understanding that insecure attachments have severe negative effects, enables researchers to create interventions that help to develop secure attachments so that these negative outcomes can be avoided. Cooper (2005) is a project which teaches caregivers to better understand their infants signals of distress and to increase their understanding of what it feels like to be anxious. The project showed an increase in the number of caregivers classed as securely attached – from 32 – 40%. It also showed a huge decrease in the number of caregivers who were initially classed as showing disordered attachment behaviours (difficulty in reading child’s emotions and resistance to show affection). This supports the research by Ainsworth as it shows that it can be used to improve children’s lives which will ultimately have a positive effect on society.

Weaknesses:

• Validity: The strange situation study seems to imply that attachment types influence personality and therefore affect later attachments.  However, the strange situation may actually be testing the relationship between the infant and the caregiver. Main and Weston (1981) found that children behaved differently depending on which parent they were with.  This suggests that attachment type is not consistent. This means that the strange situation may not be a valid measure of attachment type, as it only measures one relationship, rather than a personal characteristic of the infant which can be generalised to all other attachments.
• Ethnocentric: The test was devised by Ainsworth in the USA using American children.  The test is therefore culturally biased.  Desirable attachments in the USA may not be seen as desirable elsewhere. Ainsworth believed that secure attachments are the most prevalent and ideal for a child and parent to have. However, this only applies to western societies. When looking at this cross-culturally the same theory may not be possible to generalise. For example Takahashi (1990) said that the strange situation does not really work in Japan because a mother and child are rarely separated. Therefore Japanese children were mainly classed as anxious resistant because they showed extreme separation anxiety. In addition, Japanese mothers tended to rush to the baby and scoop them up so quickly that it was difficult to observe the reunion stage. Ainsworth’s classification system is quite ethnocentric and does not account for cultural differences. This means that it may not provide and accurate understanding of attachment types in other cultures.  Challenge: Nevertheless the test has been used worldwide and used to judge infants in other cultures.  This is an example of imposed etic when we create a theory, test or construct in one culture (usually Western) and impose it on the rest of the world! This is another key word to use instead of ethnocentrism. Why not impress the examiners with it.
• Ecological validity: The strange situation also seems to exaggerate behaviours. This is because this study was carried out in an artificial setting. An office like room with a few toys and a two-way mirror. This may lead to children over-reacting when placed in the strange situation so do not behave as they would normally in the real world.
• Individual differences: Finally Ainsworth is criticised for over-simplification in her belief that children can be categorised into only three groups.  Other studies have suggested that there big individual differences between children within in attachment group. After reviewing a further 200 tapes of children in the strange situation Main and Solomon (1986) added a fourth type of attachment that they referred to as ‘disorganised.’  The infant’s behaviour is not consistent and shows signs of indecisiveness and confusion.  Sometimes the child will freeze or rock back and forth. This means that Ainsworth may have incorrectly identified the type of a attachment for some of the babies. A best fit approach may have been used which could have led to an inconsistent labelling of anxious resistant or anxious avoidant.

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.

A key difference in cultures is the idea of individualist vs collectivist: see the video below: 

Key studies that you need to know for this topic:

Van IJzendoorn (the J is silent)  & Kroonenberg (1988)

Aim:

To compare the rates of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachments in a number of studies from 8 different countries.

Research Method:

van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) did not collect the data for this study, instead they analyzed data from other studies using a method called meta analysis. They achieved this by 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. This means that van ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg did not carry out the strange situation themselves. They simply pulled together the research from lots of other psychologists and summarised the findings from these studies

Procedure:

Data from 32 studies in 8 different countries was analyzed, these countries included: the UK, US, Sweden, Japan, China, Holland, Germany & Israel. Using a meta analysis (statistical technique) they calculated the average percentage for the different attachment styles (e.g. secure, avoidant, resistant) in each country.

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.

Results: 

• Intra-cultural variation (i.e. variation within a culture) was 1.5x greater than the cross-cultural variations (i.e. variation between cultures). For example, within the USA, one study found 46% securely attached, compared to another sample in the USA who found 90% securely attached. van IJzendoorn speculated that this was linked to differences in socio-economic factors and levels of stress that varied between samples used within each country.

Secure attachments:

• 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. Average findings were consistent with Ainsworth’s original research – Secure 65% – Avoidant 21% – Resistant 14%
• China had the lowest rates of secure – 50% and the UK had the highest 75%

Insecure resistant attachments:

• Insecure resistant was the least common attachment across all cultures.
• However, the proportion of insecure resistant attachments varied from culture to culture for example, 30% in Israel and 3% in Britain. 
• Japan and Israel had the highest rates of insecure resistant.

Insecure avoidant attachments: 

• Germany had the highest rate of insecure avoidant.
• Japan had the lowest rate of insecure avoidant attachments.

A* – extend your understanding with the information below! Go on, you know you want to look super smart in your exams 😉

Explanations of these cross cultural differences

Israeli children were reared in a Kibbutz (communal child rearing) 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.  

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.’ Yikes!

Being able to explain the cultural differences is very useful AO2 stuff. 

But don’t forget to emphasise the similarity between most other cultures! 

Evaluation:

• Meta-analysis – Cross-cultural research: van ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg use an extensive range of research – 32 studies. It also includes 8 different countries. This means that the research has increased population validity because it has a diverse range of cultures and the sample size would be large due to the large collection of studies used. This means that findings are more generalisable to the wider population. Challenge: On the other hand, the sample lacked diversity in some ways – see the generalisability point in the weaknesses section.
• Reliability – Comparison is aided by the standardised methodology. The use of the strange situation as a procedure means that a comparison can be made across cultures, and the reliability is therefore high.
• Validity: van ijzendoorn’s research has enabled researchers to better understand cultural differences in attachment types. The research highlighted that in some ways, we are similar in regards to attachments. However, this research has also highlighted ways in which we are different. It is these differences that need to be explored further. The criticisms of this research also allow researchers to plan future research. For example, it highlighted the need to use develop different variations of the strange situation in order to provide a more valid measure of attachment. Cultures such as Japan and Germany, although classed as insecure through a westerners eyes, may not be viewed in the same way if judged by researchers from their own culture. It is research such as van ijzendoorn that helps to pave the way for new and improved research into cultural differences in attachment.

• Ethnocentrism/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. This cultural bias may mean that the types of attachment may not be valid when used in other cultures! For example, the Japanese have the concept of ‘amae’ (depending on another’s love) which 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. This was supported by the Takahashi (1990) study that was mentioned when evaluating the Ainsworth research.
• Cultural bias: Same as the point above but with a focus on German culture. One issue with Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s research is that the underlying methodology of the studies in their meta-analysis used the Strange Situation. Their research highlights the culture bias demonstrated by the Strange Situation, as they reported significant differences in the distribution of attachment types in different cultures. For example, Germany had the highest rate of insecure-avoidant attachment which may be the result of different childrearing practices and not a more ‘insecure’ population. In Germany, there is a general desire to keep some interpersonal distance between parents and infants; therefore, parents would generally discourage proximity-seeking behaviours within the Strange Situation which might bias the results of attachment research in Germany leading to an incorrect classification of ‘insecure-avoidant’.
• Generalisability: Despite the large number of studies combined in this meta-analysis over half (18 of the 32) were still US.  Only 5 of the 32 were carried out in collectivist cultures. The study lacks globally representativeness -Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg recognised that data from more collectivist cultures were required to establish a more global perspective of attachment classifications. Countries such as Africa, South America, and Eastern European socialist countries were not represented. In addition, as a disproportionately high number of the studies reviewed were conducted in the USA (18/32), the overall findings would have been distorted by these. This means that the apparent consistency between cultures might not genuinely reflect how much attachment types vary between cultures, and therefore, the findings may lack validity when trying to generalise the attachment types across the world. 

Simonella et al (2014) A more up to date study

Simonella assessed 76 1 year old’s using the ‘Strange Situation’

They found that 50% presented secure attachments and 36% presented insecure-avoidant attachments. These rates were a lot lower for secure attachment then previous studies possibly due to the change in social norms of mothers working. Mothers at this time were more likely to work long hours and would need to source child care. 

Simonella concluded that cultural changes over time can have a dramatic effect on the types of attachment in a population

Evaluation:

• Temporal validity: The Simonella study highlighted the importance of cultural changes over time. when researching culture, researchers should be mindful that attachment types within cultures are not a permanent concept. Research should be repeated over periods of time to ensure that it reflects the current attachment style. By not replicating research, it could lead to a misunderstanding as it will not provide a valid insight into attachment types.

Takahashi (1990)

Takahashi (1990) attempted replicated the Strange Situation with 60 middle class Japanese infants & mothers using the same standardised procedure and behavioural categories. However, when the Japanese infants were left alone they were so distressed that the ‘leaving the infant alone’ stage of the strange situation had to be abandoned, however if they had not been so distressed then as many as 80% of Japanese infants would have been classed as securely attached. The findings were as follows:

• 0% insecure-avoidant. Infants became severely distressed in the “infant alone step”; this situation was quite unnatural and broke cultural norms for the infants
• 32% insecure-resistant
• 68% secure
• 90% of infant-alone steps had to be stopped due to excessive infant anxiety.

One question that Takahashi’s study raises is why there were no insecure-avoidant children. Japanese cultural values make it extremely impolite to avoid interacting with other people and children are taught this from a very early age, which could account for the lack of insecure-avoidant infants in the study. A second question is why infants were so extremely distressed when left alone. Japanese infants spend almost 100% of their time in contact with their mothers for the first 2 years of their lives. They are carried around on the mother’s back, and usually sleep and bathe with their parents. The strange situation measure separation distress, but as Japanese children are hardly ever separated from they mothers then being left alone is extremely unusual for them and leads to extreme distress that the strange situation incorrectly judges as insecure-resistant behaviour.