Where you see stability, another sees chaos.
Where you see independence, another sees distance and detachment.
Where you see codependence, another sees the importance of family.
How we see the world is largely dictated by our cultural upbringing – our values and norms.
So, how does cross-cultural research escape innate bias?
The problem is it often doesn’t.
The Attachment Study
We’ve discussed the Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta-analysis over the past couple of weeks.
The large-scale study comparing global attachment styles is often regarded as groundbreaking in cross-cultural psychology.
Their research relied heavily on the Strange Situation procedure and Ainsworth’s attachment classification system, which groups infant attachment into secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant styles.
While this study advanced the understanding of attachment across cultures, its findings are not without significant limitations – particularly issues stemming from cultural bias and ethnocentrism.
The Issue of Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism occurs when one culture’s norms are taken as a universal benchmark for human behavior.
In the study, attachment classification was based on Western values and norms, specifically those of American culture, where the Strange Situation and attachment categories were first developed.
Ethnocentrism can distort cross-cultural studies because it imposes a particular culture’s view onto other societies, potentially skewing results and interpretations.
In this case, the study assumed that attachment behaviors observed in American infants are universally relevant, but this overlooks critical differences in child-rearing practices worldwide.
For instance, Japanese infants may show higher rates of insecure-resistant attachment simply because their close bonds with mothers in collectivist cultures emphasize dependency.
Yet, when measured by Western standards, these behaviors might be misinterpreted as “insecure,” potentially leading to misunderstandings about what constitutes “healthy” attachment across diverse societies.
Imposed Etic: Overlooking Cultural Nuances
The study’s reliance on the etic approach, or an outsider’s view of a culture, contributed to overlooking cultural nuances in attachment.
Using Ainsworth’s attachment categories as a standard framework for all cultures exemplifies an “imposed etic” – applying a Western-based tool to other societies without adapting it for cultural context.
This can obscure the unique factors influencing attachment in non-Western cultures and prevent researchers from understanding what attachment looks like in its authentic, culturally specific forms.
Emic Approach: Exploring Concepts with Cultural Relativism
To avoid ethnocentrism in research, it’s crucial for researchers to approach different cultures with cultural relativism, viewing each society’s practices and beliefs within its unique context rather than from an outsider’s perspective.
This can be done by incorporating the emic approach, where researchers explore cultural concepts from within, learning how members of the culture interpret their own behaviors and values.
Collaborating with local researchers who understand the cultural nuances and adapting research tools to fit specific cultural contexts can further minimize ethnocentrism.
For instance, modifying standard research protocols, like the Strange Situation in attachment studies, to align with cultural child-rearing practices would help produce more accurate results.
Instead of assuming universal standards, researchers can compare findings cross-culturally while respecting the unique social norms and values each society upholds.
While Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis provides valuable insights, it also underscores the need for caution in cross-cultural research.
Addressing cultural biases and adopting a culturally intuitive approach can lead to a more accurate understanding of attachment in different societies, enhancing the relevance and inclusivity of psychological research.
Success Across Cultures 