Chapter 11 A Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Attachment Research1

Primary appraisal of the Strange Situation: A cross-cultural analysis of preseparation episodes.

“…Thus, the kibbutz infants appeared to be more alert to stress and seemed to exhibit more preseparation anxiety than did infants in most other samples. In the cross-cultural debate, two samples have received much attention, namely, the Bielefeld and the Japanese (e.g., see Bretherton, 1985 ;Grossmann & Grossmann, 1990 ;Lamb et al, 1985 ;Sagi, 1990 ;Sagi et al, 1987 ). In our contrast analyses on the secure groups, however, the Bielefeld sample only once appeared to be in a specific position: Infants showed less proximity seeking to the mother in Episode 2 than did the U.S. infants.…”

“…• In Bielefeld, a very large playroom with many attractive play materials was used in the Strange Situation, and this was much beyond the guidelines prescribed by Ainsworth et al ( 1978 , for a methodological review see Sagi & Lewkowicz, 1987) .…”

Cross-Cultural Patterns of Attachment: A Meta-Analysis of the Strange Situation

“…Cross-cultural aspects of attachment theory and findings have been discussed for several years (Amsworth, 1977, Bretherton, 1985, Hmde, 1982, Lamb, Thompson, Gardner, & Charnov, 1985, Sagi & Lewkowicz, 1987 Research usmg the Strange Situation paradigm (Amsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) m vanous countries seemed to show marked differences m distributions of attachment classifications across cultures distributions found in Bielefeld, Federal Repubhc of Germany (Grossmann, Grossmann, Spangler, Suess, & Unzner, 1985), m Sapporo, Japan (Miyake, Chen, & Campos, 1985, Takahashi, 1986, and m Israeli kibbutzim (Sagi et al, 1985) were seen to deviate strongly from the American "Standard" distribuüon of about 20% avoidant (A), 70% secure (B), and 10% resistant (C) attachment relationships (Amsworth et al, 1978) A relatively high percentage of A classifications were found m Bielefeld, and a relatively high percentage of C classifications, in Japan and Israel It is somewhat cunous that so much attention has been paid to deviant distributions found in these samples (see, for mstance, Bretherton, 1985 Because sample sizes in attachment research generally have been rather small, samphng error cannot always be ruled out In the case of the Bielefeld sample, Hmde (1982) rightly speaks of a "provisional" findmg if the obtamed distribution deviates not only from the American "Standard" but also from other German and Western European distributions, its characteristics need to be rephcated before speculaüons about this population's idiosyncratic cultural background can be seriously entertamed In general, cross-cultural discussions of attachment theory and findings have presupposed thattheie are large cross-cultural differences compared with mtracultural differences, however, no empirical studies have addressed this issue on the available data Although Lamb et al (1985, p 183), Fthenakis (1985, p 223), van IJzendoorn (1986a, and Sagi and Lewkowicz (1987, p 432) have compared attachment classification distributions from several different cultures, at most only a Üiird of the available evidence was considered m each mstance, Statements about the proportion of mtracultural to crosscultural differences could theiefore only be imprecise For example, Lamb et al (1985) mentioned both variations of distributions between and withm cultures, but they did not compare the relatively large mtracultural variation of the United States with that of non-American distributions (see also, Sagi & Lewkowicz, ...…”

Reconsidering Attachment in Context of Culture: Review of Attachment Studies in Japan

“…A study conducted in Bielefeld, in northern Germany, found more avoidant babies than secure babies, which some argue was a result of distal parenting practices that emphasize independence, representing the German culture (Grossmann, Grossmann, Huber, & Wartner, 1981). But another study conducted in Regensburg, in southern Germany (Sagi & Lewkowicz, 1987), reported a distribution that did not differ from the global distribution. The controversy regarding attachment research in Germany thus has subsided, understanding that the differences were more likely attributed to general interactive style differences between northern and southern Germans rather than cultural differences per se.…”