Would this be enough to get full marks?Watch
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 32 strange situation studies from eight countries, involving over 2000 children. They found that secure attachment was the most common type of attachment, followed by insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant. Insecure-avoidant attachment types were however not common in Israel or Japan, whilst insecure-resistant attachments were (second highest).
Should I add more detail to this or is this enough for four marks?
"Outline what research has shown about cultural variations in attachment. (4)"
this question is purely asking you for what research HAS SHOWN. this therfore means that while
"Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 32 strange situation studies from eight countries, involving over 2000 children."
is a very nice and well written introduction, it will get you no marks and therefore could be argued to be a waste of time writing.
I think the trouble comes in that all our lives we've been taught to write the perfect answers where you explain who what where when, but in the case of AS psychology you have to be so 'to the point'.
I therefore believe your answer may be worth as low as 2 marks to a harsh marker and it's unfortunate because you clearly know the study well - it's just knowing what to include in the answer.
I hope this helps you with structure of even the smallest questions.
Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg carried out a meta-analysis to observe cultural variations in attachment. They found that securely attached children were the most common in all countries, with the highest percentage in the UK and the lowest in China. They also found that Germany had the highest number of avoidant children, this is because parents in Germany encourage independence. Takahashi found that a high percentage of Japanese infants were insecure resistant, because they rarely left their mothers.