Upgrade to remove ads
DP (60-63) || Cultural Variation
Terms in this set (12)
How is attachment determined across cultures?
Child-bearing method and environment.
Value independence (e.g. UK)
Value interdependence (e.g. Japan)
Ainsworth (1967), Uganda
1. Evidence for SECURE BASE
2. SA mothers = greater SENSITIVITY to infant, mirroring Ainsworth (1978) findings (Str Sit.)
Tronick (1992), Efe (African Tribe)
1. Infants cared for + breastfed by different women, but slept with mum at night, had PRIMARY ATTACHMENT (@6 months).
Israeli communal settlement
1. Infants cared for in communal children's home by metaplot. Attachment tested (str sit.):
Metaplot ≠ mum - except reunion: metaplot < mum.
Evidence for PRIMARY ATTACHMENT.
Grossmann x2 (1991)
German infants = insecurely attached due to
CHILD-BEARING PRACTICES: interpersonal distance between parent and infant > proximity-seeking behaviour not exhibited.
M/C Japanese infants, same as U.S for SA, 0%IA, 32% IR. Distressed when alone - study stopped for 90% of infants.
CHILDCARE PRACTICES: infants rarely exp. separation.
Conclusions from research
1. Primary attachment with infant's mother
2. Differences in attachment explained by cultural attitudes.
Kroonenberg et al. (1988) Meta Analysis
8 different counties. Aim: investigate inter (between cultures)- + intra-cultural differences (within cultures).
FINDINGS: SA most common in every country. IA next most common (except Japan/Israel).
Variation within = 1.5 greater than variation between.
1. Global pattern across cultures similar to U.S.
2. SA = norm (supports idea that SA = best soc./emo. dev.)
3. Cross-cultural similarities (supports idea that attachment is innate + biological process).
[Eval.] Cultural bias
Rothbaum (2000) Attachment theory + research irrelevant to other cultures - rooted in American culture.
[US = views of Ainsworth/Bowlby]
US = SA is related to caregiver responsiveness reflects Western ideas of Autonomy.
Japan = sensitivity is about promoting dependence - opposing objectives.
2. CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS
US = SA -> soc./emo. competence (individuation, self-regulation of emo.)
Japan = competence -> inhibition of emo. expression.
3. SECURE BASE
US = SA provide SB from which to explore, promoting independence.
Japan = amae (dep. + presume upon another's love) - IR typical of this characteristic - explains Takahashi's findings.
Tokyo study (urban) = similar distribution of attachment to Western studies.
Indigenous theories of attachment & Universality
Rothbaum - psychologists should produce indigenous theories; few universal principles exist (e.g. protection).
Posada + Jacobs (2001) argue universality is true for many countries e.g. China, Germany, Norway.
Prior + Glaser (2006) SB behaviour, maternal sensitivity vary across cultures but core concepts are universal.
Nation vs. culture
Tokyo study (URBAN) = similar distribution of attachment to Western studies.
Sagi (2001) over-representation of IRs in RURAL setting.
US rural may ≠ Israel rural more than US urban.
Class explains within-culture variation.
Explaining cultural similarities
Mass media, similar influences.
Cultural simlarities explained by (+) global culture (not innate bio. infl.)
Psychologists not native to nation/region may struggle with language/dialect.
Tools used by psychologist reflect their values, not those of the culture.
e.g. Str Sit assumes willingness to explore = SA.
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
DP (50-51) || Explanations of Attachment: Learning…
DP (52-53) || Explanations of Attachment: Bowlby's…
DP (56-59) || Types of Attachment
DP (64-65) || Disruption of Attachment
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Multicultural Psychology Chapters 1-3
Culture and Psychology Test Chapters 1-4
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
Driving Theory | 3: Documents
Practical Driving Test Revision
English Language Glossary
OTHER QUIZLET SETS
WSJ Article Exam 2---Articles from 1.30.17
Science method study guide
R and J