Cultral Variations In Attachment

Front 1

3 key finding of Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

Back 1

Most children are Type B secure
Patterns of Cross cultral diffrences e.g Type A common in western europe and Type C commen in Isreal & Japan
Attachment types in line with Ainsworth in all cultures.

Front 2

Japan Type C amblivient

Back 2

Miayka et al say in japan parents do not leave children as they value family relations. In SS they showed highlevels of stranger and separation axiety (indicate insecure attachment when not)
Takashash (1990)SS on two yearolds, difference dissapeared.

Front 3

Isreal Type C amblivient

Back 3

Only 3% of population
Meteplets , High levels of stranger anxi because hardly any contact with strangers.
Lambe et al (1985) thought they were stressed out in SS.
Fox (1977) Equally attached to metaplet and Mum, but prefered mum as source of comfort because metaplet changed every 4 years.

Front 4

Isreal Type C amblivient

Back 4

Only 3% of population
Meteplets , High levels of stranger anxi because hardly any contact with strangers.
Lambe et al (1985) thought they were stressed out in SS.
Fox (1977) Equally attached to metaplet and Mum, but prefered mum as source of comfort because metaplet changed every 4 years.

Front 5

Germany Type A

Back 5

Gross man et al (1985)
49% avoident ---parents put great value on independence
No evid that mum is unresponsive

Front 6

China

Back 6

Sensitivity =key

Front 7

Monotropy and Culture

Back 7

All different depending on parenting styles

Front 8

Thomas (1988)

Back 8

Caribbeian culture, multiple attachments

Front 9

Schaffer and Emmerson (1964)

Back 9

All attachment benificial but one primary attachment

Front 10

Ainsworth (1967)

Back 10

Ganda tribe- Multiple care givers, 1 primary

Front 11

Marvine et al (1977)

Back 11

many meternal fiqures but prefer the one that held and interact them the most.