Cultural variations in attachment | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
Updated: Sep 9
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 40 minutes
These Cultural variations in attachment A-Level Psychology revision notes examine whether attachment patterns are similar across different countries and cultural groups. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg combined findings from 32 Strange Situation studies conducted in eight countries. Secure attachment was the most common classification in every country, but rates of insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachment varied. You will explore these findings and evaluate whether the research reveals genuine cultural differences or reflects culturally biased methods and differences within countries.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Describe cultural variations in attachment.
Explain the difference between variation within and between cultures.
Describe van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s investigation.
Explain the main findings of the meta-analysis.
Apply findings about cultural variation to unfamiliar data and scenarios.
Evaluate research into cultural variations in attachment.
Revision Notes đź“š
Cultural variations in attachment A-Level Psychology revision overview
A cultural variation is a difference in behaviour or psychological characteristics between cultural groups.
Applied to attachment, psychologists investigate whether the proportions of:
Secure attachment.
Insecure-avoidant attachment.
Insecure-resistant attachment.
differ across countries or cultural settings.
These classifications are based on behaviour observed during separation, reunion and interaction with a stranger.
Researchers are interested in two broad questions:
Are some features of attachment universal?
Do cultural childcare practices influence how attachment is expressed?
What is culture?
Culture refers to the shared beliefs, values, customs, practices and expectations of a group.
Culture may influence:
How infants are cared for.
How often infants experience separation.
Whether independence is encouraged.
How much physical contact is typical.
Whether care is provided mainly by one person or several people.
How children are expected to respond to unfamiliar adults.
Which attachment behaviours are considered desirable.
Culture is not identical to nationality.
People living in the same country may differ according to:
Ethnic background.
Religion.
Region.
Social class.
Family structure.
Childcare arrangements.
Urban or rural environment.
This distinction becomes important when evaluating cross-cultural attachment research.
Universal and culturally variable behaviour
Universal behaviour
A universal behaviour appears across human cultures.
If secure attachment is the most common classification in many countries, this may suggest that infants share a general tendency to form close, protective relationships.
This would be consistent with the evolutionary and adaptive functions of attachment.
Bowlby proposed that attachment increases survival by keeping an infant close to a protective caregiver.
If attachment has an innate basis, psychologists might expect important similarities across cultures.
Culturally variable behaviour
A behaviour is culturally variable when its frequency or expression differs between cultural groups.
For example, cultural practices may influence:
How comfortable an infant is with separation.
Whether independent exploration is encouraged.
The amount of physical closeness between caregiver and infant.
Whether an unfamiliar adult is viewed as threatening.
How distress is expressed.
The basic need for attachment may be universal, while the way attachment behaviour is expressed may vary.
Universal need, different expression
A useful distinction is:
Attachment may be universal, but attachment behaviour may be shaped by culture.
For example, two infants may both have close caregiver relationships.
However:
One may be accustomed to regular separation and display little visible distress.
The other may rarely experience separation and display intense distress when the caregiver leaves.
The behavioural difference does not automatically prove that one relationship is healthier or more secure.
Individualist and collectivist cultures
Individualist cultures
Individualist cultures place relatively greater emphasis on:
Independence.
Personal achievement.
Individual choice.
Self-reliance.
Separation between the individual and wider group.
Caregivers may encourage infants to:
Explore independently.
Sleep separately.
Spend time with different adults.
Become comfortable away from the primary caregiver.
Some Western European and North American cultures are commonly described as relatively individualist.
Collectivist cultures
Collectivist cultures place relatively greater emphasis on:
Group membership.
Family interdependence.
Cooperation.
Social harmony.
Close relationships.
Shared responsibilities.
Caregivers may encourage:
Close physical contact.
Strong family bonds.
Dependence within the group.
Less frequent separation during early infancy.
Some East Asian and communal cultural settings are commonly described as relatively collectivist.
Avoid treating cultures as simple categories
Individualism and collectivism are broad tendencies.
Not every family within an individualist culture encourages independence to the same extent.
Not every family within a collectivist culture follows the same childcare practices.
People and communities may also combine elements of both.
These labels can help psychologists generate explanations, but they should not be treated as complete descriptions of every person within a country.
Why might attachment classifications vary?
Experience of separation
Infants who regularly experience childcare or short separations may find separation in the Strange Situation relatively familiar.
They may therefore show:
Less visible separation anxiety.
Greater comfort with a stranger.
Continued exploration after the caregiver leaves.
Infants who are rarely separated from their caregivers may find the procedure far more unusual and distressing.
They may show:
Intense separation anxiety.
Strong rejection of the stranger.
Difficulty settling at reunion.
Encouragement of independence
Some caregivers encourage infants to explore independently.
An infant from this environment may:
Move away from the caregiver readily.
Focus on toys.
Show less proximity-seeking.
Display less visible distress.
These behaviours might be classified as insecure-avoidant using the original system.
However, within that culture, the behaviour may reflect encouraged independence rather than an unhealthy relationship.
Emphasis on close physical contact
In cultures where infants remain physically close to caregivers, separation may be highly unusual.
The infant may:
Remain close rather than explore.
show intense distress when the caregiver leaves.
cling at reunion.
remain unsettled after the separation.
This could increase the likelihood of an insecure-resistant classification.
However, the behaviour may partly reflect unfamiliarity with separation rather than inconsistent caregiving.
Contact with unfamiliar adults
Infants differ in how often they meet unfamiliar adults.
A child who regularly attends group childcare may be more comfortable with a stranger than a child cared for mainly within the family.
Stranger anxiety may therefore reflect:
Cultural childcare practices.
Familiarity with unfamiliar adults.
Attachment quality.
A mixture of all three.
Cross-cultural research
What is cross-cultural research?
Cross-cultural research compares behaviour across two or more cultural groups.
In attachment research, psychologists may compare:
The proportion of attachment types in different countries.
Behaviour during the Strange Situation.
Caregiver-infant interaction.
Childcare practices.
Reactions to separation and reunion.
Cross-cultural research can help psychologists decide whether an explanation is:
Universal.
Culturally specific.
Influenced by both biology and experience.
Between-culture variation
Between-culture variation, or intercultural variation, refers to differences between cultural groups or countries.
For example:
A higher proportion of insecure-avoidant classifications in one country than another.
A higher rate of insecure-resistant attachment in a particular cultural setting.
Within-culture variation
Within-culture variation, or intracultural variation, refers to differences among samples from the same cultural group or country.
For example, two studies conducted in the same country may report different attachment distributions.
Within-country differences could reflect:
Regional customs.
Social class.
Childcare arrangements.
Family structure.
Research procedures.
Characteristics of the sample.
An important finding from van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg was that variation within countries was greater than variation between countries.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s investigation
Aim
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg investigated whether the distribution of attachment classifications varied across cultures.
They wanted to examine:
Whether secure attachment was the most common classification across countries.
Whether rates of insecure attachment differed.
Whether variation was greater between countries or within individual countries.
Method
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis.
A meta-analysis combines findings from several existing studies to identify an overall pattern.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg combined the findings of:
32 studies
Conducted across eight countries
The studies had used Ainsworth’s Strange Situation to classify infants as:
Secure.
Insecure-avoidant.
Insecure-resistant.
Using the same general attachment measure allowed the researchers to compare the distributions reported by different studies.
Why use a meta-analysis?
A single study may contain:
A relatively small sample.
Participants from one location.
An unusual set of families.
Findings affected by chance.
Combining many studies can reveal whether a broader pattern appears across samples.
A meta-analysis can also compare:
Overall attachment distributions.
Particular countries.
Different samples within the same country.
Independent and dependent variables
The investigation was not a controlled experiment.
The researchers did not manipulate the culture in which an infant was raised.
However, the broad comparison involved:
Comparison variable:Â country or cultural setting.
Outcome variable:Â proportion of infants classified as secure, insecure-avoidant or insecure-resistant.
Because culture was not manipulated, the researchers could identify differences but could not establish that culture caused those differences.
Findings of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg
Secure attachment was the most common type
Secure attachment was the most common classification in every country included in the analysis.
The proportion classified as secure ranged from approximately:
50% in China
To 75% in the United Kingdom
This was an important finding.
Even where rates of insecure attachment differed, neither insecure-avoidant nor insecure-resistant attachment became the most common overall classification within a country.
What does this suggest?
The predominance of secure attachment could suggest that:
Secure attachment is a widespread feature of human development.
Infants across cultures generally form effective bonds with caregivers.
Attachment may have an innate and adaptive basis.
Caregivers across cultures usually provide sufficient security for attachment.
This provides some support for the universal element of Bowlby’s theory.
However, it is also possible that the Strange Situation and its classifications favour the identification of secure attachment because they were created using a particular cultural model.
Higher insecure-avoidant rates in Germany
German samples showed a higher proportion of insecure-avoidant attachment than samples from the United States.
A possible cultural explanation is that greater independence may be encouraged.
Infants may be expected to:
Explore without frequent contact.
Show less dependence on the caregiver.
Cope with brief separations.
Avoid excessive clinging.
Within the Strange Situation, this could appear as:
Limited separation anxiety.
Independent exploration.
Less proximity-seeking at reunion.
These behaviours are associated with an insecure-avoidant classification.
Interpretation must be cautious
The finding does not prove that German caregivers are less responsive or that German infants are less emotionally attached.
The classification may reflect culturally encouraged independence.
The same behaviour can have different meanings depending on the cultural context.
Higher insecure-resistant rates in collectivist settings
Samples from collectivist settings in countries including China, Japan and Israel showed relatively high proportions of insecure-resistant attachment.
Rates above 25% were found in some of these samples.
A possible explanation is that infants in these settings may:
Experience close caregiver contact.
Have limited experience of separation.
Find the Strange Situation unusually distressing.
Show strong separation and stranger anxiety.
Remain unsettled after reunion.
These behaviours may lead to an insecure-resistant classification.
Separation as an unfamiliar event
If an infant is rarely separated from a caregiver, the Strange Situation may create far greater stress than it does for an infant who regularly experiences childcare.
The resulting distress could reflect:
The novelty of separation.
Cultural childcare practices.
Attachment insecurity.
The method may not allow researchers to separate these explanations clearly.
Variation within countries
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg found that variation between samples within the same country was approximately one-and-a-half times greater than variation between countries.
This means that two samples from the same country could differ more than samples from different countries.
Why this finding matters
The finding challenges the assumption that each country has one attachment culture.
It suggests that attachment patterns may be strongly influenced by:
Local childcare practices.
Family circumstances.
Social class.
Regional traditions.
Sample selection.
Differences in how studies were conducted.
Country-level averages can conceal considerable diversity.
Summary of findings
Finding | Possible interpretation |
Secure attachment was most common in every country | Secure attachment may be a widespread or universal pattern |
Secure attachment ranged from around 50% in China to 75% in the UK | The frequency of classifications still varied between countries |
German samples showed more insecure-avoidant attachment than US samples | Cultural encouragement of independence may influence behaviour |
Some collectivist samples showed relatively high insecure-resistant attachment | Rare separation and greater closeness may increase distress |
Variation within countries was 1.5 times greater than between countries | National averages may hide important local and family differences |
Interpreting the findings
Evidence for universality
The finding that secure attachment was most common across all eight countries supports the view that attachment has universal features.
This is consistent with Bowlby’s proposal that:
Infants are biologically prepared to attach.
Attachment keeps infants close to protection.
Secure relationships support survival.
A behaviour that promotes survival would be expected to occur across cultures.
Evidence for cultural influence
Differences in insecure classifications suggest that culture affects how attachment is expressed.
Caregiving practices may influence:
Independence.
Separation experience.
Proximity-seeking.
Stranger response.
Reunion behaviour.
The findings therefore support an interaction between:
Universal biological attachment processes.
Culturally shaped behaviour.
A combined conclusion
The evidence does not require psychologists to choose between biology and culture.
A balanced conclusion is:
The tendency to form attachments may be universal, while cultural practices influence the way attachment behaviour appears during assessment.
Evaluating van Ijzendoorn’s research
Strength: a large evidence base
The meta-analysis combined 32 studies.
This provided a much larger body of evidence than one individual investigation.
A larger combined evidence base reduces the influence of:
One unusual sample.
Chance variation.
A single researcher’s findings.
A specific local setting.
The repeated finding that secure attachment was most common is therefore more convincing than it would be in one small study.
Strength: the same general measure was used
The included studies used the Strange Situation and the same three attachment classifications.
This gave the researchers a common basis for comparison.
Without a shared measure, one country’s definition of secure attachment might differ completely from another’s.
The consistent framework helped make statistical comparison possible.
Limitation: the quality of the meta-analysis depends on its studies
A meta-analysis cannot remove weaknesses already present in the original research.
If the included studies contained:
Biased samples.
Unreliable observations.
Poorly trained observers.
Artificial settings.
Culturally inappropriate classifications.
these weaknesses may be carried into the combined findings.
Combining several weak studies does not automatically produce a valid conclusion.
Limitation: studies may not have been identical
Although all studies used the Strange Situation, procedures may have varied.
Differences could include:
The age of the infants.
The length of separations.
Instructions given to caregivers.
Observer training.
Coding decisions.
The setting used.
Recruitment methods.
Some differences attributed to culture may therefore reflect methodological variation.
Strength: variation within countries was examined
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg did not compare only national averages.
They also considered differences among samples from the same country.
The discovery that within-country variation was greater prevents an oversimplified conclusion such as:
“Every infant from one country has the same attachment pattern.”
This gives the analysis greater depth.
Limitation: country is not the same as culture
The investigation often treated a country as though it represented one culture.
This is problematic because countries may contain:
Several ethnic groups.
Different religions.
Different social classes.
Regional variation.
Rural and urban communities.
Different childcare arrangements.
A study conducted in one city cannot necessarily represent an entire country.
The use of national labels may therefore hide important cultural diversity.
Limitation: unequal representation
Not every country contributed the same number of studies or participants.
Some countries were represented by several samples, while others contributed less evidence.
This means the combined pattern may be influenced more strongly by countries with a larger research base.
A country represented by one unusual sample could appear less typical than it really is.
Limitation: limited global representation
Eight countries cannot represent every human culture.
Many cultural groups were absent.
The findings may therefore have limited generalisability to:
Countries not included.
Smaller cultural communities.
Non-industrialised populations.
Families with childcare practices not represented in the studies.
The study was cross-cultural, but not fully representative of worldwide cultural diversity.
Cultural bias in the Strange Situation
The method was developed in the United States
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation was developed using assumptions about desirable attachment behaviour within a US cultural context.
It values a pattern in which the infant:
Explores independently.
Shows some separation distress.
Seeks comfort at reunion.
Settles and returns to exploration.
This pattern may fit childcare expectations in some Western individualist cultures particularly well.
Imposed etic
An imposed etic occurs when a theory or method developed in one culture is applied to other cultures as though it were universally valid.
The Strange Situation may create an imposed etic because:
The same episodes are used across countries.
The same behavioural categories are applied.
US standards of secure behaviour are treated as universal.
Local meanings of behaviour may be overlooked.
For example, strong separation distress may be classified as insecure-resistant even where separation is extremely unusual.
Different behaviour may have different meanings
The meaning of behaviour depends on context.
Limited visible distress
Limited separation anxiety might indicate:
Insecure-avoidant attachment.
Familiarity with separation.
Cultural encouragement of independence.
A tendency not to express distress openly.
Intense distress
Intense separation anxiety might indicate:
Insecure-resistant attachment.
An unfamiliar experience of separation.
Strong cultural expectations of caregiver proximity.
Temporary tiredness or fear.
The Strange Situation may classify the behaviour consistently without identifying its cultural meaning accurately.
Etic and emic approaches
An etic approach studies behaviour using categories intended to apply across cultures.
The Strange Situation is mainly etic because it uses the same procedure and classifications internationally.
An emic approach studies behaviour from within the cultural group, using concepts meaningful to that culture.
An emic attachment study might:
Observe culturally typical separation situations.
Consult local caregivers.
Develop culturally appropriate behavioural categories.
Examine how security is expressed within that community.
Advantages of an etic approach
Using the same method allows:
Direct comparison.
Standardisation.
Replication.
Identification of broad similarities.
Without a common measure, cultural comparisons would be much harder.
Advantages of an emic approach
A culturally specific method may have greater validity because it considers:
Local childcare practices.
Cultural meanings of proximity.
Typical levels of independence.
Ordinary experiences of strangers and separation.
The strongest research may combine etic comparison with emic understanding.
Within-culture variation
Why families in one country differ
Families living in the same country may use very different childcare practices.
Differences may arise from:
Employment patterns.
Access to childcare.
Extended-family involvement.
Family income.
Parental beliefs.
Number of siblings.
Housing arrangements.
Parental experience.
Community traditions.
These factors may affect attachment behaviour more directly than nationality.
Subcultures
A subculture is a group within a wider culture that shares particular values or practices.
A country may contain subcultures based on:
Religion.
Ethnicity.
Region.
Occupation.
Social class.
Lifestyle.
Treating the country as one uniform culture can therefore produce misleading conclusions.
Implications of greater within-country variation
The finding that intracultural variation was greater than intercultural variation suggests:
Culture is not accurately represented by nationality alone.
Local child-rearing practices matter.
National stereotypes are inappropriate.
Researchers should describe samples precisely.
Conclusions should not be generalised to every family in a country.
This is one of the most important evaluation points for van Ijzendoorn’s investigation.
Alternative explanations for cultural differences
Socioeconomic circumstances
Differences in income and living conditions may influence:
Parental stress.
Time available for caregiving.
Access to childcare.
Stability of care.
Family support.
If socioeconomic circumstances differ between samples, they may provide an alternative explanation for attachment variation.
Infant temperament
Temperament refers to biologically influenced differences in emotional reactivity and behaviour.
Some infants may naturally be:
More sociable.
More fearful.
More distressed by change.
Easier to soothe.
Temperament could affect Strange Situation behaviour independently of attachment quality.
If temperament varies between samples, this could influence classification rates.
Familiarity with the procedure
Infants who regularly experience unfamiliar settings and caregivers may cope differently from infants cared for mainly at home.
The Strange Situation may partly measure experience of:
Childcare.
Separation.
New environments.
Unfamiliar adults.
These experiences may be culturally patterned but are not identical to attachment security.
Differences between researchers
Observers in different studies may vary in:
Training.
Expectations.
Interpretation of resistance.
Interpretation of avoidance.
Thresholds for classifying distress.
Even with standard behavioural categories, observer judgement may contribute to variation.
Correlation and causation
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg found associations between country and attachment classification.
However, they did not manipulate culture.
The findings cannot establish that:
Cultural values directly caused a particular attachment type.
Other variables could be responsible.
These include:
Caregiver sensitivity.
Social class.
Infant temperament.
Childcare experience.
Family structure.
Research procedure.
A careful conclusion is:
Attachment classifications varied between samples from different countries, but the research cannot establish which cultural or family factors caused the differences.
Ethical and social issues
Risk of cultural stereotyping
Research findings can be oversimplified into stereotypes such as:
“German infants are avoidant.”
“Japanese infants are resistant.”
“One culture produces better attachment.”
These claims ignore:
Variation within countries.
Differences between samples.
Cultural meanings of behaviour.
The fact that secure attachment remained most common everywhere.
Psychologists should describe group-level patterns without applying them automatically to
individuals.
Judging cultures using one standard
Calling behaviour insecure may imply that a cultural practice is harmful.
This can be socially sensitive when the classification is based on standards developed elsewhere.
Researchers should avoid assuming that:
Greater independence is always rejection.
Greater proximity is always overdependence.
Western childcare practices are universally ideal.
Secure does not mean culturally superior
The term secure refers to a behavioural classification.
It should not be used to rank entire countries or cultures morally.
A national average cannot provide a complete judgement of:
Parenting quality.
Infant wellbeing.
Family relationships.
Cultural values.
Practical value of cultural research
Improving assessment
Cross-cultural findings show that attachment assessments should consider:
The infant’s normal experience of separation.
Typical childcare arrangements.
Cultural expectations of independence.
The meaning of stranger anxiety.
The relationship being assessed.
Professionals should avoid making important decisions from one observation without cultural context.
Supporting culturally sensitive care
Research may help:
Adoption services.
Foster carers.
Healthcare professionals.
Childcare providers.
Family support workers.
understand that attachment behaviour may be expressed differently.
Challenging universal assumptions
Cross-cultural research encourages psychologists to test whether theories apply widely rather than assuming that findings from one country represent all humans.
This strengthens Psychology by identifying:
Genuine universals.
Culturally specific behaviour.
Limitations in existing methods.
Van Ijzendoorn and Bowlby
Support for Bowlby
Secure attachment was the most common type in every country.
This supports Bowlby’s argument that attachment is:
Innate.
Adaptive.
A widespread feature of human development.
A secure relationship may promote exploration and protection across different environments.
Challenge to complete universality
The proportions of insecure attachment varied across countries and samples.
This suggests that attachment is not expressed identically everywhere.
Culture appears to shape:
Behaviour during separation.
Reactions to strangers.
Expectations of independence.
Reunion behaviour.
Combined interpretation
Bowlby may be correct that the attachment system is universal.
However, the Strange Situation measures behaviour through a particular cultural lens.
The universal system and its culturally shaped expression should therefore be distinguished.
Van Ijzendoorn and the Strange Situation
Standardised comparison
The use of the Strange Situation allowed every study to consider broadly similar behaviours:
Exploration.
Stranger anxiety.
Separation anxiety.
Reunion behaviour.
This supports reliable comparison.
Questionable cultural validity
The method may not create an equivalent level of stress in every culture.
For example:
Separation may be familiar in one sample.
Separation may be extremely unusual in another.
The procedure may therefore have the same physical episodes without having the same psychological meaning.
Reliability versus validity
The Strange Situation may classify behaviour consistently across cultures.
This supports reliability.
However, if the meaning of the behaviour differs across cultures, the classification may have reduced validity.
A measure can therefore be reliable without being culturally valid.
How to analyse cultural data
Step 1: Identify the most common type
Do not assume that a higher rate of an insecure type means it is the most common.
Check the full distribution.
Secure attachment remained the most common type in all countries in van Ijzendoorn’s analysis.
Step 2: Compare the same category
For example:
Compare secure percentages across countries.
Compare insecure-avoidant percentages across countries.
Compare insecure-resistant percentages across countries.
Avoid comparing different categories and presenting the difference as a cultural effect.
Step 3: Calculate or describe differences
State:
Which sample is higher.
Which is lower.
The size of the difference where possible.
Step 4: Offer a cautious explanation
Use phrases such as:
“This may reflect…”
“A possible explanation is…”
“The result could be influenced by…”
Do not assume that culture has been proven as the cause.
Step 5: Consider within-culture variation
Ask whether:
One sample represents the whole country.
Local childcare practices differed.
Another sample from the same country might produce different findings.
Applying research to a scenario
Example data
A researcher reports the following distributions:
Country | Secure | Insecure-avoidant | Insecure-resistant |
Country A | 68% | 24% | 8% |
Country B | 62% | 9% | 29% |
A strong analysis might state:
Secure attachment is the most common type in both countries.
Country A has a higher proportion of insecure-avoidant attachment.
Country B has a higher proportion of insecure-resistant attachment.
Country B’s pattern might reflect less experience of separation.
The results do not prove that culture caused the difference.
Samples from other regions of each country might produce different findings.
Weak analysis
Country A is avoidant and Country B is resistant.
This is incorrect because secure attachment is the most common classification in both.
It also labels entire countries using one minority classification.
Stronger analysis
Although secure attachment is the modal classification in both countries, Country A has a higher proportion of insecure-avoidant infants, whereas Country B has a higher proportion of insecure-resistant infants.
Evaluating research into cultural variations
Standardisation supports comparison
A strength is that the Strange Situation provides a standardised procedure.
Researchers can compare behaviour under similar conditions.
This increases:
Replicability.
Reliability.
Consistency of classification.
Ease of statistical comparison.
Cultural bias limits interpretation
A limitation is that the standard procedure may favour Western expectations.
The same behaviour may not indicate the same attachment quality in every culture.
This reduces cultural validity and risks an imposed etic.
A large meta-analysis identifies broad patterns
Combining 32 studies makes the main findings less dependent on one sample.
The repeated predominance of secure attachment is therefore reasonably convincing.
The combined sample may still be unrepresentative
The included countries and samples do not cover all cultures.
The findings should not be treated as a complete map of worldwide attachment.
Greater within-country variation challenges national explanations
Variation within countries was greater than variation between countries.
This suggests national culture alone cannot explain attachment distribution.
Family and local variables may be more important.
The research is descriptive rather than causal
The meta-analysis identifies patterns but cannot manipulate culture or control all alternative variables.
It therefore cannot prove why the differences occurred.
Attachment categories may oversimplify cultural behaviour
Placing infants into three categories makes comparison possible.
However, categories may hide differences in:
Intensity of distress.
Caregiver responsiveness.
Cultural meaning.
Individual experience.
Attachment may be more complex than one label suggests.
A balanced conclusion
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg found both cultural similarities and differences.
The most important similarity was that secure attachment was the most common type in every country.
This supports the possibility of a universal attachment system.
However:
Insecure classifications varied.
Within-country variation was greater than between-country variation.
The Strange Situation may contain cultural bias.
Country does not represent one uniform culture.
The most justified conclusion is:
Attachment appears to have universal features, but its behavioural expression and classification are influenced by cultural and local childcare practices.
Answering examination questions
Outline van Ijzendoorn’s investigation
For a four-mark outline, include more than one element of the investigation.
A strong answer could cover:
It was a meta-analysis.
It combined 32 Strange Situation studies.
The studies came from eight countries.
Secure attachment was most common everywhere.
German samples showed relatively more insecure-avoidant attachment.
Some collectivist samples showed relatively more insecure-resistant attachment.
Variation within countries was greater than variation between countries.
You do not need every point, but your answer should include both method and findings rather than only naming the researchers.
Describing cultural variation
Explain:
What differed.
Which attachment types were affected.
Whether the comparison is within or between countries.
That secure attachment remained most common.
Evaluating cultural research
Develop each point by explaining its consequence.
Weak evaluation
The Strange Situation is culturally biased.
Stronger evaluation
The Strange Situation was developed in the United States and assumes that moderate separation distress followed by effective comfort represents secure attachment. In cultures where infants rarely experience separation, intense distress may be culturally typical rather than evidence of insecurity. Applying the US classification universally may therefore reduce validity.
Using evidence precisely
Avoid claiming:
Insecure-avoidant attachment was the most common type in Germany.
Insecure-resistant attachment was the most common type in Japan.
All infants within a country behaved alike.
The correct overall finding is that secure attachment remained the most common classification in every country.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Learn the method accurately. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies across eight countries.
Examiner hint:Â Include both procedure and findings. The strongest short answers combine a concise description of the meta-analysis with several accurate results.
Examiner hint:Â Secure attachment was the most common type in every country. Do not claim that an insecure type was the overall majority in Germany, Japan or another country.
Examiner hint:Â Do not confuse the insecure classifications. German samples showed relatively more insecure-avoidant attachment, while some collectivist samples showed relatively more insecure-resistant attachment.
Examiner hint:Â The range in secure attachment was approximately 50% in China to 75% in the UK.
Examiner hint:Â Remember the important comparison: variation within countries was around 1.5 times greater than variation between countries.
Examiner hint:Â Match the amount of detail to the marks available. A four-mark outline should be concise and accurate rather than becoming a long general essay about culture.
Examiner hint: In evaluation, avoid generic statements such as “the study was biased”. Explain how applying the Strange Situation across cultures may misinterpret culturally typical behaviour.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying van Ijzendoorn conducted one Strange Situation experiment
Why this is incorrect:
The researchers combined findings from existing studies.
How to improve:
Describe the investigation as a meta-analysis of 32 studies.
Mistake: Confusing the number of studies and countries
Why this is incorrect:
There were 32 studies conducted across eight countries.
How to improve:
Remember:
32 studies, 8 countries.
Mistake: Saying insecure-avoidant attachment was most common in Germany
Why this is incorrect:
Germany had a relatively higher avoidant rate, but secure attachment was still the most common classification.
How to improve:
Distinguish “higher than another country” from “the most common type”.
Mistake: Saying insecure-resistant attachment was the most common type in Japan
Why this is incorrect:
Some Japanese samples had relatively high resistant rates, but secure attachment remained the modal type.
How to improve:
State that resistant attachment was more frequent relative to many Western samples.
Mistake: Treating every person in a country as belonging to one identical culture
Why this is incorrect:
Countries contain many subcultures and family practices.
How to improve:
Refer to samples and cultural settings rather than making claims about every citizen.
Mistake: Ignoring variation within countries
Why this matters:
Within-country variation was greater than between-country variation.
How to improve:
Explain that local and family factors may be more important than nationality.
Mistake: Saying the research proves culture causes attachment type
Why this is incorrect:
Culture was not manipulated and alternative variables were not controlled.
How to improve:
Describe an association and offer cautious possible explanations.
Mistake: Describing collectivist infants as less securely attached
Why this is inaccurate:
Secure attachment remained the most common classification.
How to improve:
Discuss the relative frequency of insecure-resistant attachment without judging overall attachment quality.
Mistake: Assuming intense distress always shows poor attachment
Why this is incorrect:
The infant may have limited experience of separation.
How to improve:
Consider the cultural meaning and familiarity of the procedure.
Mistake: Assuming little distress always shows confidence
Why this is incorrect:
Limited visible distress may be classified as avoidant or may reflect culturally encouraged independence.
How to improve:
Use the full behavioural pattern and cultural context.
Mistake: Saying standardisation guarantees validity
Why this is incorrect:
A method can be applied consistently while still misinterpreting culturally different behaviour.
How to improve:
Distinguish reliability from cultural validity.
Mistake: Using the term imposed etic without explanation
Why this is incomplete:
The term must be linked to the method.
How to improve:
Explain that a US procedure and classification system were applied to other cultures as though their meanings were universal.
Mistake: Giving generic cultural-bias evaluation
Why this is incomplete:
The point must explain which behaviour may be misinterpreted.
How to improve:
Use separation experience, independent exploration or stranger anxiety as an example.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following best describes van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s method?
A. Laboratory experiment
B. Natural experiment
C. Meta-analysis
D. Case study
[1 mark]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer: C. Meta-analysis
Question 2
Define intracultural variation.
[2 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 2
2 marks:Â Clear definition referring to differences in attachment patterns found within the same culture or country.
1 mark:Â Limited or partial definition.
Indicative content
Variation between different samples or groups from the same culture.
Contrasts with intercultural variation, which refers to differences between cultures.
Example answer
Intracultural variation refers to differences in attachment patterns between groups or samples within the same culture or country.
Question 3
Outline van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s investigation of cultural variations in attachment.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 4
3 to 4 marks:Â Knowledge of the investigation is clear and generally detailed.
1 to 2 marks:Â Knowledge is limited or muddled.
0 marks:Â No relevant content.
Indicative content
Conducted a meta-analysis.
Included 32 studies from eight countries.
Studies used the Strange Situation to classify secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachment.
Secure attachment was the most common classification across the countries.
Insecure-avoidant attachment was relatively higher in Germany.
Insecure-resistant attachment was relatively higher in collectivist cultures such as Japan and Israel.
Variation within countries was around 1.5 times greater than variation between countries.
These are the points specifically credited in AQA's 2023 mark scheme.
Example answer
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg carried out a meta-analysis of 32 Strange Situation studies from eight countries. Secure attachment was the most common classification across the countries studied. Germany showed relatively more insecure-avoidant attachment, while some collectivist cultures showed relatively more insecure-resistant attachment. They also found greater variation within countries than between countries.
Question 4
Explain one difference between intercultural and intracultural variation.
[3 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 3
1 mark:Â Intercultural variation refers to differences between cultures or countries.
1 mark:Â Intracultural variation refers to differences within the same culture or country.
1 mark:Â Clear comparison or appropriate example.
Example answer
Intercultural variation is variation in attachment patterns between different cultures, such as Germany and Japan. Intracultural variation refers to differences between samples within the same culture.
Question 5
A student says:
“Insecure-avoidant attachment was the most common type in Germany.”
Use van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s findings to explain why this statement is inaccurate.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 4
Award 1 mark each for:
The statement is inaccurate because secure attachment, not insecure-avoidant attachment, was the most common classification in Germany.
Germany did have a relatively high proportion of insecure-avoidant attachment.
This rate was higher than that found in some other countries, including the US comparison.
A relatively high rate does not mean that insecure-avoidant attachment was the most common attachment type.
AQA specifically states that Germany had higher rates of insecure-avoidant attachment, while secure attachment remained the most common classification in van Ijzendoorn's investigation.
Example answer
The statement confuses a relatively high rate with the most common attachment type. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg found that Germany had a higher proportion of insecure-avoidant infants than some other countries, but secure attachment was still the most common classification in Germany.
Question 6
The table shows attachment classifications from two samples.
Attachment type | Sample A | Sample B |
Secure | 70% | 61% |
Insecure-avoidant | 22% | 8% |
Insecure-resistant | 8% | 31% |
Describe two differences between the samples. Explain one possible cultural reason for the pattern.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 6
Award up to 4 marks for describing differences and up to 2 marks for an explained cultural reason.
Indicative content
Differences
Secure attachment is higher in Sample A, 70% compared with 61%.
Insecure-avoidant attachment is much higher in Sample A, 22% compared with 8%.
Insecure-resistant attachment is much higher in Sample B, 31% compared with 8%.
Credit any two clearly described differences.
Possible cultural explanation
A culture encouraging independence may produce more behaviour classified as insecure-avoidant.
In cultures where infants remain in close proximity to caregivers and separation is unusual, the Strange Situation may produce greater separation distress and more behaviour classified as insecure-resistant.
AQA accepts explanations linking higher insecure-avoidant attachment in Germany to encouragement of independence, and higher insecure-resistant attachment in collectivist cultures such as Japan to cultural differences in child-rearing.
Example answer
Sample A has more secure attachment than Sample B, 70% compared with 61%. It also has considerably more insecure-avoidant attachment, 22% compared with 8%, whereas Sample B has much more insecure-resistant attachment, 31% compared with 8%. One possible explanation is that Sample A comes from a culture that encourages greater independence, which may produce behaviour classified as avoidant. In a culture where separation from caregivers is less common, infants may show greater distress and therefore be more likely to be classified as resistant.
Question 7
Explain how the finding that secure attachment was the most common classification in every country could support Bowlby’s theory.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO3 = 4
Award 1 mark each for:
Bowlby proposed that attachment is innate/evolutionary.
Attachment behaviour has survival value because it keeps infants close to caregivers.
Secure attachment being the most common classification across different cultures suggests a degree of universality.
This is consistent with Bowlby's claim that attachment has a biological basis rather than being entirely determined by culture.
Example answer
Bowlby argued that attachment is an innate behaviour that evolved because keeping infants close to caregivers increases survival. Secure attachment being the most common pattern across different countries suggests that there may be a universal biological basis to attachment. This is consistent with Bowlby's evolutionary explanation.
Question 8
Researchers used the Strange Situation to compare attachment in two countries. Infants in one country were rarely separated from their caregivers and showed intense distress during the procedure.
Explain why cultural bias may affect the validity of the researchers’ classifications.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2/AO3 = 6
5 to 6 marks:Â Cultural bias is clearly explained and effectively applied to the scenario.
3 to 4 marks:Â Some appropriate explanation and application.
1 to 2 marks:Â Limited explanation or application.
0 marks:Â No relevant content.
Indicative content
The Strange Situation was developed within a particular cultural context.
It assumes that behaviours such as separation anxiety have the same meaning across cultures.
In the country described, infants are rarely separated from caregivers.
Separation during the Strange Situation may therefore be unusually stressful.
High distress could result from unfamiliarity with separation rather than insecure attachment.
Infants might consequently be classified as insecure-resistant when the classification does not accurately represent the quality of their attachment.
This is an example of an imposed etic, applying criteria developed in one culture to another.
Cultural bias therefore reduces the validity of cross-cultural comparisons.
Example answer
The Strange Situation may be culturally biased because it assumes that behaviours such as separation anxiety have the same meaning in every culture. In the country described, infants are rarely separated from caregivers, so separation during the procedure may be particularly unfamiliar and distressing. An infant could therefore show intense distress because separation is unusual rather than because the attachment is insecure-resistant. Applying classifications developed in one cultural setting to another is an imposed etic, so the classifications may lack validity.
Question 9
Explain one strength and one limitation of using a meta-analysis to investigate cultural variations in attachment.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO3 = 6
Award up to 3 marks for the strength and 3 marks for the limitation.
Indicative content
Strength
Meta-analysis combines data from many studies.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg included 32 studies across eight countries.
The much larger combined evidence base makes it easier to identify broad patterns that might not be apparent in one small study.
Limitation
A meta-analysis relies on studies conducted by different researchers.
Samples and procedures may differ, even where the Strange Situation is used.
Apparent cultural differences could therefore partly reflect methodological or sampling differences rather than genuine effects of culture.
Alternatively, publication bias could mean that available published studies are not representative of all research conducted.
AQA's mark scheme confirms that the investigation pooled 32 studies from eight countries and also found substantial variation between studies within the same country, highlighting the importance of differences between individual samples.
Example answer
One strength is that a meta-analysis combines findings from many studies. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg used 32 studies from eight countries, giving a much larger evidence base from which to identify broad patterns in attachment.
One limitation is that the studies being combined may differ in their samples or procedures. Differences classified as cultural variation might therefore partly result from methodological or sampling differences between the original studies, reducing the validity of conclusions about culture.
Question 10
Discuss research into cultural variations in attachment. Refer to van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg in your answer.
[16 marks]
Comments