(PDF) Dyadic relationships from a cross cultural perspective: Parent-child relationships and friendship

Childhood relationships and behavioural theories based on undesirable inherited characteristics has in the past sent confusing messages to both the general public and government agencies until a breakthrough in reliable, statistical and verifiable empirical based research became available called attachment theories. Since then parenting styles and childhood continue to receive a high priority of investigation to help understand a person’s behaviour (Karen, 1994). Two theories in developmental psychology that are both predictors of how and why people form close relationships with others over their lifespan are Attachment theory and Psychoanalytic theory of which both show that family life and childhood relationships are strong predictors of the types of relationships people form in life and their relating styles. This case study was conducted to replicate these findings by interviewing a person currently experiencing a relationship problem, on the dynamics of the relationship, past relationships, childhood and family. This case study shows that while temperament may be a genetic predisposition, emotional and relating styles a person uses correlate with strongly supported, empirical based research on the formation of early relationships that began with caregivers and is passed down through the generations (Karen, 1994; Sigelman & Rider, 2009).

1 Dyadic Relationships from a Cross-Cultural Perspective: Parent-Child Relationships and Friendship Kenneth H. Rubin, Wonjung Oh, Melissa Menzer, & Katie Ellison University of Maryland-College Park 2 Dyadic Relationships from a Cross-Cultural Perspective: Parent-Child Relationships and Friendship The development of relationships with significant others is one of the most important tasks that an individual encounters in his/her lifetime. According to Hinde (1987; 1997), relationships are ongoing patterns of interaction between two individuals who acknowledge some connection with each other. In the case of children and adolescents, the social partners with whom interaction is most frequently experienced include parents, siblings, and peers. From Hinde’s and Stevenson-Hinde’s perspective (see Chapter 1, Figure 1), individuals bring to social exchanges, reasonably stable social orientations (temperament; personality) that dispose them to be more or less sociable, agreeable, and able to regulate their emotions. These social orientations are, in part, biologically based, but they are also the product of interactions with others. It is through their individual dispositions and social interactions that children come to develop a repertoire of social-cognitions that aid in the understanding the thoughts, emotions, and intentions of others; and together, these factors create opportunities for the development of social skills and competencies. Significantly, the interactions that children have with others are not scattershot. Most early interactions occur with parents and siblings (and in some cultures, with grandparents and extended family members – aunts, uncles, cousins); subsequently, children’s extra-familial interactions most often occur with peers, particularly friends. Thus, most social interactions are embedded in longer-term relationships; moreover, these interactions are influenced by past and anticipated future interactions with their relationship partners. The quality of these relationships is actually defined, in large part, by the characteristics of the partners and the interactions that occur between them. Based on the tenets of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), the kinds of relationships individuals form 3 depend on their history of interactions and on the relationships they had earlier formed with significant others. For example, it has been proposed that the quality of children’s friendships depends, in part, on the interactions that the children have had with each other as well as on the quality of each child’s relationships with primary caregivers. It is also the case that dyadic relationships are embedded within groups or networks of relationships with more or less clearly defined boundaries (families, cliques). Groups are more than mere aggregates of relationships; through emergent properties, such as norms or shared cultural conventions, groups help define the type and range of relationships, interactions and indeed, individual social inclinations that are likely or permissible (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Despite accelerated growth in psychological studies pertaining to culture and crosscultural comparisons, it is nevertheless the case that the vast majority of studies pertaining to children’s relationships have focused primarily on Western European and North American samples. However, as is evidenced by the contents of this book, researchers are increasingly examining relationships from a cultural perspective; emerging evidence suggests that there is considerable cultural variability in children’s relationship experiences (see Chen, French, and Schneider, 2006 for a review). Given our belief that dyadic relationships are highly significant forces in individual development, in this chapter, we review the extant cultural and crosscultural psychological literature on children’s parent-child and dyadic relationships with peers (friendship). Relationships from a Cultural Perspective Does a given relationship construct (e.g., supportiveness) function in the same way in different contexts and cultures? Are there different meanings ascribed to given relationship features when they occur in different cultures? Although it may be the case that parents in 4 all cultures nurture their children to be healthy and to feel secure, there appear to be culturespecific norms with regard to how child health and security may be developed and achieved (Hinde, 1987, 1997). Relatedly, McCall (1988) has argued that there are likely cultural blueprints for interpersonal relationships. We begin this chapter with the assumption that the most developmentally adaptive relationships that children (and young adolescents) experience are those that bring with them positive affect and intrapersonal satisfaction. From this assumption, it is argued that positive affect and satisfaction in close relationships may be a function of varying relationship constructs in different cultures. Relationship Constructs and Provisions Given that social relationships are defined and regulated by rules, norms and value systems of culture, there is clearly a need to consider how such close relationships as parent-child relationships and friendships are manifested in various cultures, and how the underlying constructs or provisions of these relationships are perceived and evaluated by individuals within different cultures. By provisions, we are referring to such constructs as support, protection, guidance, reassurance of worth, and nurturance (e.g., Weiss, 1974). Other relationship constructs or provisions include intimacy, reliable alliance, instrumental help, companionship, and importantly, power distribution and distance (e.g., Cutrona & Russell, 1987; Furman, 1996; Laursen et al., 2006). Ultimately, the question being asked is whether some relationship constructs/provisions are viewed as more or less valuable and acceptable in different cultures (e.g., Rubin & Chung, 2006). From our perspective, the expression of individual satisfaction with a relationship informs us about those constructs (e.g., felt support, security, trust, intimacy) that define the quality, value, and acceptability of given relationships. An important conceptual feature of relationship satisfaction is its emphasis on individual 5 variability in the perception and interpretation of their close relationships in a given culture (e.g., Harkness, Super, & van Tjen, 2000; Killen & Wainryb, 2000; Schwarz, Trommsdorff, Kim, & Park, 2006; Triandis, 1995). Many researchers have examined the extent to which relationship constructs are associated with adjustment or maladjustment (see Rubin & Chung, 2006 for reviews). Perceived (and occasionally, observed) support and warmth in parent-child relationships and friendships have been linked to positive adjustment (e.g., social competence, self-worth), whereas perceived (and occasionally, observed) lack of supportiveness and warmth have been associated with internalizing and externalizing problems (e.g., Collins & Laursen, 2004; Laursen & Mooney, 2008; McCartney, Owen, Booth, Clarke-Stewart, & Vandell, 2003). Significantly, most of this body of research has been carried out in Western cultures; relatively few studies of relationship perceptions and their associations with positive and negative developmental correlates and consequences are available in non-Western cultures. Furthermore, little attention has been given to individual differences in perceptions and evaluations about the very meaning of satisfactory relationships in different cultures. We review below, two dimensions that reflect cultural values that may be associated with the types of relationships that children and adolescents may have with parents and peers (friends). These dimensions are characterized by vertical/horizontal and individualist/collectivistic values (Hofstede, 1980). Vertical versus horizontal relationships: Power asymmetry versus symmetry. One of the central features of dyadic relationships is the extent to which each partner wields power and assumes dominant status. For example, the parent-child relationship typically involves asymmetrical distributions of power, whereas putatively horizontal relationships such as friendships may be depicted as, to some extent, symmetrical and egalitarian (Hartup & 6 Laursen, 1991; Hinde, 1997; Piaget, 1932; Youniss, 1980). Importantly, Hinde (1997) has argued that power distance and distribution is a property of the relationship and not of individuals. For example, power distance involves the question: “Who takes charge and decides what should be done?” in close relationships. Thus, in some relationships, Child A may wield relatively little power; in others, he/she may be the dominant force. Significantly, the distribution of power in close relationships may be influenced by context and culture (for example, in some cultures, males have more power, or expect to have more power, in their relationships with females, Hofstede, 1980). Due to differences in maturity, experience, wisdom, and authority, parents are generally viewed as wielding greater relative power than their children (Youniss, 1980). Yet, in Western cultures, with the emergence of adolescence, changes often occur in the balance of power and autonomy between parent and child; with increasing age, the peer group becomes increasingly influential. Thus, with development, changes and shifts in closeness and interdependence are evidenced within parent-child relationships and friendships (Laursen et al., 2006; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Whilst it has been surmised that there are distinctive differences in the power distributions of parent-child relationships and friendships, Hinde (1997) has argued that every relationship is unique in at least some aspects. Although the peer relations of children and young adolescents are thought to be relatively symmetrical and equal on dimensions of power and control, there may be considerable variation in power and autonomy. For example, when one participant in a friendship exercises more power, it results in the other’s relative decrease in autonomy. According to Hinde, what matters is the latter’s perception of this power asymmetry. Agreement/disagreement or acceptance/rejection of the power distance between friends may affect their perceptions and evaluations of their relationship. 7 Disagreement about where power lies may lead to relationship conflict and dissatisfaction (Hinde, 1997). But it is also possible that there is cultural variation in the acceptance of power distance within particular relationships; in some cultures, power distance in particular relationships may be expected and accepted; in others, it may reflect dysfunctional social affiliations. Individualism and collectivism. Relative power/power distance is but one dimension that distinguishes interactions and relationships in different cultures (Hofstede, 1980). Perhaps better known among those who study cultural values and orientations are the constructs of individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995). Although researchers have typically employed a dichotomous approach in their studies of individualism and collectivism, it has become increasingly commonplace to question the existence of a distinct, clear-cut cultural dualism (Killen & Wainryb, 2000; Wainryb, 2004). Rather, researchers who study cultural values and dimensions are likely to consider them as more or less collectivistic and more or less individualistic. Western cultures are considered to have a cultural bias toward relatively more emphasis on the socialization of independence by encouraging autonomy, assertiveness, and self-reliance. Eastern (e.g., Asian and Arab) and Southern (e.g., African, Central and South American) societies are characterized as relatively more collectivistic and are likely to place relatively greater emphasis on conformity, compliance, respect for authority figures, and interdependence in social relationships (Hofstede, 1980; Hui & Triandis, 1986). Families of European background in Western cultures tend to value warmth and non-punitive methods of discipline in parent-child relationships; such authoritative parenting styles have been associated with children’s positive social, emotional, and academic outcomes (Baumrind, 1978; Eisenberg, Valiente, Losoya, Zhou, Cumberland, Liew, & 8 Maxon, 2008). In addition, the frequent parental use of psychological control (e.g., guilt and love withdrawal) among European parents in Western cultures is related to such undesirable children’s developmental outcomes as emotional distress and negative self-esteem (for a review see Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2006). It is argued that psychological control intrudes on the development of children’s sense of a positive self. On the other hand, parents’ behavioral control (e.g., monitoring) seems to be associated with such desirable developmental outcomes as academic achievement and lack of delinquency because it provides children with guidance without risking individuation processes. Such findings are typically attributed to the mainstream European–American values of autonomy, individuation, and independence in the United States (Barber et al., 2006). Conceptually, these values also reflect a lesser degree of power distance (hierarchy) in parent-child interactions within Western cultures. In contrast, psychological and behavioral control in parent-child relationships have not been found to be associated with children’s negative outcomes in East Asian cultures (Chao & Tseng, 2002; Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, & Maynard, 2003). Rohner and Pettengill (1985) found that for South Korean children and adolescents, but not for their North American counterparts, strict parental control was associated with adolescents’ perceptions of parental warmth and high levels of involvement in parent-child relationships; for North American youth, adolescent appraisals of high parental control were associated with parental hostility or rejection. The authors indicated that Korean adolescents do not consider their parent-child relationships as negative when parents use strict control. In another relevant study, Chao (1994) found that many East Asian children considered their parents’ strictness, firm control, and demand for obedience as reflecting parental care, warmth, love, and involvement. Taken together, certain characteristics of parenting traditionally considered as 9 negative in the many Western cultures may not be so considered in contexts within which strict obligations and conformity to others (e.g., elders in family) are emphasized. The latter characterizes many Asian cultures with a Confucian heritage such as China, Japan and Korea (Chao & Tseng, 2002). Thus far, the examples noted above refer to the cultural acceptability and interpretation of particular forms of parenting. Similar arguments have been made about the cultural acceptance of, and satisfaction with, particular aspects of relationships. For example, some researchers have argued that maintaining intimate relationships with parents may be a more important developmental task for Asian children and adolescents than it is for their Western counterparts (Korea Survey, 1991; Lee & Lee, 1990). According to French (2004), in cultures within which the family system is prioritized (e.g., China, Japan, Korea), the significance of extra-familial relationships (e.g., friendships) is somewhat diminished. In such cultures, individuals are more likely to turn to family members than to nonfamily members for social provisions and support. Relatedly, Takahashi, Ohara, Antonucci, and Akiyama (2002) examined the relative significance of parent-child relationships versus friendship among Americans and Japanese individuals ranging in age from 20 to 64 years. The findings indicated that affection toward friends was higher within the American than the Japanese sample. The East Asian findings noted above have been supported by recent studies in Middle Eastern and North and East African countries. Cultural values within these countries tend to be more collectivistic and parenting practices are more authoritarian, relative to societies in the West (Dwairy & Achoui, 2006). Traditionally, in these countries, the family is viewed as more important than the individual, emphasizing loyalty, interdependence and respectfulness to parents (Kagitcibasi, 1996, 2005). Recent research 10 indicates that Arab youth in Lebanon report higher levels of interdependence and asymmetric power distribution (hierarchy) in their parent-child relationships; these youth also report higher levels of satisfaction with their parent-child relationships (e.g., Dwairy & Achoui, 2006; Dwairy, Achoui, Abouserie, & Farah, 2006). Similarly, the Arab Woman Development Report (2003) showed that approximately 87 % of Arab female youth in Lebanon and Bahrain evaluated their parent-child relationships as good to excellent. In an extensive cross-regional study (Algeria, Saudi, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan), results revealed that despite the increase in modernization in Arab societies, high levels of interdependence and connectedness were evidenced in parent-child relationships; autonomy and individuation were not positively viewed regardless of the degree of modernization, country and parents’ education (Dwairy, et al., 2006). Thus, Arab children and youth report high levels of satisfaction in the parent-child relationship when the parent exhibits relatively high levels of control and harsh punishment and low levels of expressed warmth (e.g., Dwairy, 2004). Lastly, in a study of American, Korean, and Middle Eastern (Omani) young adolescents, determinants of satisfaction with the mother-child and father-child relationship were compared and contrasted (Rubin, Oh, Ashktorab, Rhee, Jung, & Kim, 2006). The results revealed complex distinctions between the very meanings of mother- and father-child relationships in the three cultures. For example, in the USA, when young adolescents viewed their mothers and fathers as clearly dominant in the parent-child relationship (that is, the relationship was perceived as hierarchical or vertical in nature), they also perceived the relationship to be characterized by negativity (e.g., conflict; punitiveness) and by a relative lack of positivity (e.g., affection; intimacy). This pattern of relations between constructs was identical for mother- and father-child relationships. In South Korea and Oman, the more the mother- and father-child relationships were perceived to be hierarchical/vertical by young 11 adolescents, the more the relationships were viewed as positive. Moreover, in Oman the more the father-child relationships were perceived to be hierarchical/vertical, the less the relationships were characterized by negative interactions (e.g., conflict and punishment). This was not the case in either the USA or Korea. Further analyses revealed that young adolescents’ relationship satisfaction with their mothers and fathers was predicted (1) in the USA, by high amounts of affection and intimacy and by low negativity and verticality; (2) in South Korea, by high amounts of affection and intimacy and low negativity; (3) in Oman by high amounts of paternal affection and intimacy and low paternal negativity. And finally, the more the father-child relationship was viewed as hierarchical/vertical, the more satisfied Korean and Omani young adolescents were with the relationship. Indeed, in Oman, satisfaction with the mother-child relationship was also predicted by verticality in the relationship (not by positivity nor negative interactions). This study reveals clearly that in a culture (USA) within which autonomy and individuality are promoted, young adolescents are dissatisfied when their parents are viewed as adhering to a hierarchical, top-down relationship perspective. In accord with cultural notions pertaining to filial piety (or “hyo”; Kim, 2006), although verticality in mother-child relationships was positively associated with negative interactions, Korean young adolescents viewed their relationships with their fathers as positive if the fathers were viewed as adhering to a hierarchical, top-down relationship perspective. And finally, in Oman, where hierarchical relationships reflect respect and the acceptance of power, young adolescents viewed their relationships with their fathers and mothers as positive if their parents were viewed as adhering to a hierarchical, top-down relationship perspective. Taken together, the aforementioned conceptual frameworks and empirical findings suggest that cultural norms, values, and orientations may influence the salience, 12 interpretation and perceptions of acceptable and desirable qualities in close relationships. In the remainder of this chapter, we review relevant research pertaining to two specific types of relationships – the parent-child attachment relationship and friendship. Attachment Relationships and Culture It has been proposed that the attachment relationship between the child and his/her primary caregiver (most often, the mother) derives from a biologically-rooted behavioral system that is marked by the infant’s natural proximity-seeking to caregivers for safety, security, and support (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). The attachment system regulates both physical and psychological safety in the context of close relationships. Perceived danger, stress, and threats to the accessibility of attachment figures activate attachment responses. When children with secure attachments are threatened, they tend to seek out those with whom they feel secure and protected; in this way, these figures serve as “safe havens.” In novel environments, attachment figures also serve as “secure bases” from which children (Ainsworth et al., 1978) and adolescents (Allen, McElhaney, Land, Kuperminc, Moore, O’Beirne-Kelly, & Kilmer, 2003) can explore unfamiliar people, objects, and activities. Insecure attachments fall into several subcategories. In unfamiliar contexts, the insecureavoidant child does not seek proximity to and comfort from the primary caregiver; rather, the child often avoids him or her. The insecure-ambivalent child is hesitant to explore novelty in the presence of the primary caregiver and is extremely distressed upon separation from him/her. A third category of insecure attachment, disorganized, describes children who do not engage in any clear attachment activities, often displaying bizarre behaviors instead. Generally, attachment theorists and researchers have argued that a child who has experienced warmth, sensitivity, and responsiveness from a parent or caregiver will develop a 13 secure pattern of attachment (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978). Significantly and consistently, a secure attachment relationship has been found to predict such positive outcomes as selfesteem and social competence later in childhood and adolescence (e.g., Ainsworth 1991; Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998; Rose-Krasnor, Rubin, Booth, & Coplan, 1996; Verschueren & Marcoen, 2005). On the other hand, insecure attachments are associated with subsequent social maladjustment, including internalizing and externalizing difficulties (e.g.s, Burgess, Marshall, Rubin, & Fox, 2003; Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, Lapsley & Roisman, 2010; Chango, McElhaney, & Allen, 2009). Culture and attachment. One of the primary tenets of attachment theory is that the formation of a secure, caring, and protective relationship with a primary caregiver is the outcome of evolution and a culturally universal value (Van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). This assumption implies that such notions as the secure base for exploration are reinforced by the attachment figure regardless of culture. Unsurprisingly, the relation between culture and attachment has proved to be a somewhat controversial topic; for example, the cross-cultural universality of attachment theory has been questioned. Critics of the universality position often argue that attachment theory emphasizes autonomy, independence, and individuation as defining competence; as noted above, these values are rooted in Western ideals. Critics also emphasize that caregiver sensitivity may be culturally defined, and thus differ among societies (e.g., Rothbaum, et al., 2000). Consequently, traditional measures of attachment, such as the Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978), may not be relevant in all cultures. Central to this latter debate is that most studies have been conducted in the West, and that most measures assessing the attachment relationship were developed in Western laboratories. This has led to reasonable questions of conceptual and methodological ethnocentrism (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000). Whereas 14 the earliest work on parent-child attachment was conducted in Uganda (Ainsworth, 1967), most subsequent research has taken place in the United States and Western Europe. Furthermore, many non-Western attachment studies have yielded mixed results. This has led several researchers to question whether attachment theory (and/or the methods used to assess it) is equally relevant across cultures. During the 1980s, several studies questioned the applicability of the Strange Situation procedure in particular, and attachment theory in general, to certain cultures. Grossmann, Grossmann, Huber, and Wartner (1981) used the Strange Situation to evaluate attachment behaviors in German infants and toddlers. Results suggested an overrepresentation of insecure-avoidant (A) babies relative to that found in North American laboratories. In addition, contrary North American findings, in which approximately two-thirds of infants were classified as securely attached, only one-third of the German babies were securely attached to their mothers. Research conducted on Israeli kibbutzim discovered disproportionate numbers of insecure-ambivalent (C) infants (Oppenheim, Sagi, & Lamb, 1988). Follow-up studies several years later found that children who were classified as securely attached as infants were more likely to demonstrate independence, achievement orientation, and empathy than those children who were found to have an insecure-ambivalent attachment as infants. These results suggested that the higher prevalence of insecure attachment was not necessarily “normal” to the culture, as some of the negative outcomes associated with insecure attachments elsewhere in the world were still experienced. Again, in the 1980s, several attachment studies were conducted in Japan; just as was the case for the German and Israeli samples, the results varied from those reported among North American infants. Thus, for example, Miyake, Chen, and Campos (1985) found that 15 the insecure-ambivalent (C) classification was overrepresented in a sample of Japanese infants. Significantly, however, more than two-thirds of infants were securely attached, an even higher proportion than that found in most Western studies; also, there were no reported instances of insecure-avoidant attachments. Similarly, Takahashi (1986) reported high rates of insecure-ambivalence, relatively normal (similar to worldwide norms) rates of secure, and no cases of insecure-avoidant attachments. These results have led to assertions that dominant features of attachment theory, in particular the secure base hypothesis, are not relevant in Japan, especially given that Asian culture is relatively more accepting of interdependence (collectivism) than independence (individualism; e.g., Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000). In support of this assertion, the Japanese results have been replicated in other Asian cultures (e.g., Zevalkink, Riksen-Walraven, & Van Lieshout, 1999). It has been argued further that research protocols such as the Strange Situation and the Attachment Q Sort, designed by Western scientists, may be less valid in Japanese and other Asian cultures than the cultures within which the measures were developed. And yet, other research in Japan and elsewhere in Asia, however, has not supported these claims (e.g., Behrens, Main, & Hesse, 2007; Li, Jing, & Yang, 2004). Several studies have taken place in Africa and are worth noting. Kermoian and Leiderman (1986) studied the Gusii of southwestern Kenya. Both mothers and other caretakers commonly rear Gusii infants, with the care provided by mothers mostly limited to meeting physical (particularly nutritional) needs. A Strange Situation procedure, slightly modified, found about two-thirds of Gusii infants to be securely attached to their mothers, despite the fact that the mothers rarely play with their infants. Interestingly, the nonmaternal caretakers of the infants, who mostly interact in play and social settings, showed 16 lower rates of secure attachments to the babies. This suggests that, at least for infants, the strongest attachment was generally formed to the caregiver who provides for physical needs. Tomlinson, Cooper, and Murray (2005) found that South African toddlers living in extreme poverty had secure attachment rates similar to those worldwide. They noted that the majority of parents were able to provide a secure home environment, which was reflected by the high proportion of secure attachments. Of those who were insecurely attached, the largest subcategory was insecure-disorganized, found in one-fourth of the children. The researchers hypothesized that this finding could be unique to the high-poverty sample, living in an area where exposure to violence and abuse are common for children. This particular finding, however, is most likely not unique to South Africa – in a meta-analysis of disorganized attachment in North American samples, for example, children living in lowsocioeconomic environments were overrepresented (van Izjendoorn, M.H., Schuengel, C., and Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., 1999). Certainly, more research of this kind is needed in areas of varying socioeconomic status. Overall, the results from cross-cultural studies on the parent-child attachment relationship reveal that in most of the world, a majority of children are securely attached to a parent, but that proportions of children who fall within any one of the insecure subcategories may vary. The rates of secure attachment do appear to be steady worldwide, in Western and non-Western cultures, as well as in cultures with nontraditional family and caregiving arrangements. The major debate that has occupied the cross-cultural research on parent-child attachment has much to do with the psychological meanings of behavior across culture. The form that behaviors take (the ways things look) may appear identical from culture to culture (Whiting & Child, 1953); yet, given that cultures vary in their customs and belief systems 17 (Harkness & Super, 2002), any particular form (e.g., a behavior or an interaction) may be viewed as having a different function across cultures. Put another way, the psychological “meaning” attributed to any given social behavior is, in large part, a function of the ecological niche in which it is produced and exhibited (Bornstein & Cheah, 2006). An excellent example, in this regard, is the discussion between researchers and theorists about the conceptual distinction between attachment security/insecurity and the Japanese construct of amae (Behrens, 2004; Rothbaum et al., 2000). Some have argued that the early research findings indicating an overrepresentation of insecure-ambivalent (C) babies in Japan reflected the Eastern view that during infancy and early childhood, parents reinforce child behaviors that to Westerners, would appear to reflect dependency and clinginess. Indeed, these behaviors have been proposed, by some, to reflect desirable interdependency, or amae rather than signs of an insecure attachment relationship (Rothbaum et al., 2000). Importantly, this Western view of Eastern meanings (Rothbaum et al., 2000) has been challenged by several researchers. For example, Behrens (2004) has argued that dependency does not constitute amae, although remaining in close proximity to the mother in unfamiliar situations may be responded to with warmth and indulgence. Indeed, Vereijken, Riksen-Walraven, and Van Lieshout (1997) asked Japanese experts to describe the construct of amae using the Attachment Q-Sort. The authors found that measures of amae and dependency in 14- and 24-month-old children were not significantly correlated with an index of secure attachment. Also, Japanese mothers viewed secure attachment behavior as desirable whereas amae and dependency-related behaviors were not. Taken together, cross-cultural attachment research reveals how careful one must be in interpreting forms of social behavior. Clearly, form may be identical, but function may differ; as such, it is probably the case that Western researchers would do well to study the cultural 18 meanings of this, that, or the other behavior in concert with those researchers who have a personal history within the cultures of interest. In short, this is a call for collaboration between researchers in different cultures for whom given forms of behavior or relationship are viewed as demonstrating different functions. And while one is giving a modicum of thought to this latter proposal, it also bears noting that much remains unknown in the crosscultural and cultural parent-child attachment literature. For one, we know little about the meanings of various attachment classifications for infants and children in the long run. Whereas Western researchers have found that attachment security predicts positive social and emotional outcomes (e.g., Ainsworth 1991; Rose-Krasnor et al., 1996; Allen, et al.,, 1998; van Ijzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1996 ) and insecure attachments predict internalizing and externalizing difficulties (e.g., Burgess et al., 2003; Moss et al., 2009, Chango et al., 2009), there is a lack of cross-cultural research regarding outcomes of infant and childhood attachment. In addition, few researchers have approached the cross-cultural study of attachment from a developmental perspective -- how do attachments change over time, from childhood into adolescence and beyond? Finally, there remain many areas of the world within which attachment research appears to be almost non-existent (e.g., Latin America, South Asia, Eastern Europe). Again, this is a vacuum that requires address. Friendship and Culture In some cultures, parents and adult figures remain the most important judges of acceptable behaviors throughout childhood; in other cultures, the peer group becomes an increasingly important adjudicator of acceptable behavior and relationships with increasing age. This being the case, a central issue is the degree to which peer interactions and relationships are encouraged or even allowed. In Western cultures, for example, children are generally encouraged to interact with peers and form relationships with them. It is believed that the 19 development of close, extra-familial relationships augers well for the child’s future wellbeing. However, in kin-based societies, peer interactions may be discouraged because parents fear the potential for competition and conflict (Edwards, 1992). In addition, interactions and relationships with siblings may take the place of peers in many kin-based societies (e.g., Gaskins, 2006). Hinde (1987) has argued that culture is a driving force in how peer interactions and relationships play out (Rubin, Cheah, & Menzer, 2009). For example, cultural beliefs and norms shape how people respond to and evaluate individual characteristics, behaviors, and interactions in the peer group. In the following sections, we review cross-cultural research related to peer relationships, with a specific focus on friendships. Friendship Friendships typically comprise the first significant non-familial relationships that children develop with others. Friendships may be defined as reciprocal, egalitarian relationships in which both partners acknowledge the relationship and treat each other as equals. Friendships are typically characterized, in Western research, by companionship, a shared history, and mutual affection. The functions and meanings of friendship. Friendships serve to provide (1) support, selfesteem enhancement, and positive self-evaluation; (2) emotional security; (3) affection and opportunities for intimate disclosure; (4) intimacy and affection; (5) consensual validation of interests, hopes, and fears; (6) instrumental and informational assistance; and (7) prototypes for later romantic, marital, and parental relationships. Friendships also offer children an extra-familial base of security from which they may explore the effects of their behaviors on themselves, their peers, and their environments (Rubin et al., 2006). 20 From a Western perspective, Parker and Gottman (1989) have argued that young children’s friendships are based on the maximization of excitement and amusement levels in play. During middle childhood, friendships allow children to learn behavioral norms and develop necessary social skills. Finally, in adolescence, friends assist in identity development and self-exploration. These assumptions are grounded in the existing research on what friendship means to children of different ages. For example, Bigelow (1977) identified a developmental sequence of children’s friendship expectations, which progressed from an emphasis on friends as those providing rewards to a view of friends as those who have similar interests, understand each other, and engage in self-disclosure. Selman (1980) viewed children as mini-philosophers, for whom beliefs about friendship shaped both their friendship expectations and behaviors. Selman identified six friendship issues: formation, closeness and intimacy, trust and reciprocity, jealousy, conflict resolution and termination. Five developmental stages of friendship understanding were described within each issue, ranging from a view of friendship as a momentary physical interaction based on proximity, to an understanding that friendship develops through the integration of psychological dependency and independence. With development, children gain a better understanding of the psychological nature of friendship, acknowledge interdependency between friends, recognize the need to balance autonomy and intimacy, coordinate social perspectives, and show mutual respect for each other’s viewpoint. The developmental stage sequence proposed by Selman has been supported in a number of studies (e.g., Gurucharri, Phelps, & Selman, 1984; Keller & Wood, 1989; Oppenheimer & Thyssen, 1983; Selman, 1980) conducted in the North America and Western Europe. Of the limited extant cross-cultural research, it has been suggested that children come to understand the meanings of friendship in different ways and at different 21 development rates across cultures. For example, Gummerun and Keller (2008) studied friendship reasoning among 7, 9, 12, and 15 year olds from China, Germany, Iceland, and Russia. For 7 year olds, Russian children were found to have the highest level of friendship understanding; Chinese and German youth were found to have the least sophisticated understanding of friendship. For 9, 12, and 15 year olds, Russian and Chinese children were found to have the highest level of friendship understanding followed by the Icelandic and German children. These latter findings suggest that Chinese children appear to have a more dramatic change in friendship reasoning from age 7 to 9. One might argue that the results reflect a stronger collectivistic, interdependency orientation in China and Russia – countries in which such group oriented, collectivistic phenomena as the Young Pioneers are evident. Although cultural differences are apparent in the levels of sophistication that children demonstrate in their understanding of friendship as a relationship, this field of study is only in its infancy. Perhaps, then, researchers would do well to continue this line of research, within and across cultures, by interviewing children and young adolescents about the very meanings of friendship (Bigelow, 1977; Keller, Schuster, & Edelstein, 1993; Krappman, 1996; Selman, 1980). And perhaps youth should be asked some very basic questions that may produce different answers across cultures: What is a friend and a friendship? What is it that defines a good friendship? How does one become a friend with another person? How does one end a friendship? How does one recapture closeness in a friendship after one has had a conflict? Given that relationships within varying cultural communities are differentiated along such continua as individualism/autonomy, collectivism/connectedness, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995), strong, well thought out, conceptually based 22 cross-cultural research programs on the development of understanding the meanings of friendship are merited. Friendship provisions and culture. In cultures within which friendships are considered one of very few relationships guaranteeing societal success, both intimacy and exclusivity should be regarded as the most important aspects of a friendship (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, & Asai, 1988). In support of this conjecture, researchers have found that intimacy is more important in the friendships of children in Korea (French, Lee, & Pidada, 2006) and Cuba (Gonzalez, Moreno, Schneider, 2004) than in those of North American children. At the same time, not all putatively collectivistic cultures evidence differences from relatively individualistically-oriented cultures. For example, children in collectivist Indonesia do not differ from North American children, with respect to friendship intimacy (French, Pidada, & Victor, 2005); and Indonesian children also appear to be more inclusive rather than exclusive in their friendships. Sharabany (2006) highlighted within–collectivistic culture variability as well, but between Arab and Israeli children. Arab culture values kin-based over non-kinbased friendships and believe in a patriarchal organization of the community. The Israeli children in Sharabany’s study resided in kibbutzim (small collective communities in which property and responsibilities are shared). Israeli children were found to engage in more intimate disclosure and reported lower conflict with their best friends than did their Arab counterparts. An emphasis on trust within friendships has also been found to differ between cultures. For instance, young Russian children are found to use trust to define friendships more often than Icelandic children of the same age (Gummerum & Keller, 2008). Furthermore, whereas the prevalence of conflict is generally similar across cultures, the means by which conflict is resolved differs (French, Pidada, Denoma, McDonald, & Lawton, 23 2005). For example, Indonesian children disengage when confronted with conflict in an effort to decrease tension, whereas North American children are more likely to confront each other to resolve conflict. Disengagement in the face of potential conflict and peer animosity is the preferred choice among Chinese children and adolescents (Xu, Farver, Chang, Yu, & Zhang, 2006). This form of behavior is referred to as the ren strategy, and is indicated by refraining from argument or confrontation with friends and peers. Significantly, this strategy is unlike problem-focused avoidance because Chinese children who utilize ren are not avoiding or running away from the situation. When Chinese children choose ren as a coping strategy, they do not participate in confrontation, but directly attempt to elicit ren from the peers with whom they are interacting. This method of coping is used to encourage social harmony and group orientation – outcomes that are likely to strengthen ongoing friendships and to be attractive to those with whom one may wish to initiate a friendship. Friendship prevalence and stability. Approximately 75% to 80% of Western children have a mutual best friendship (Rubin et al., 2006), and these friendships are remarkable stable. Triandis et al. (1988) have argued that friendships are more stable in non-Western, more collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures where friendships are supposedly more fluid. However, some researchers have found evidence that contradict this contention: for example, the friendships of children from South Korean, a collectivist nation, are both more stable and exclusive than those of Indonesian children, also a collectivist nation (French et al., 2006). Within individualistic cultures, Schneider et al. (1997) found that Italian children, particularly girls, report more stable friendships than Canadian children. With regard to prevalence, French, Jansen, Riansari, and Setiono (2003) found that Indonesian and North American children have the same number of friendships. Otherwise, the literature on culture and friendship prevalence and stability is practically non-existent. 24 Friendship homophily. Most children engage in friendships with peers who are similar to themselves in observable characteristics, such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, and social behaviors. For example, with regard to multicultural and ethnically diverse nations, children in the United States are more likely to choose same-race or –ethnic peers as friends than other peers (Howes & Wu, 1990; Kao & Joyner, 2004). This tendency to form same-race friendships has been documented from the preschool through high school years, with a peak in intensity during the developmental periods of middle and late childhood (Aboud & Mendelson, 1998). In other diverse nations, such as Germany, researchers have found that immigrants tend to develop friendships with others of the same ethnicity (Titzmann, Silbereisen, & Schmitt-Rodermund, 2007). Furthermore, new immigrants are more likely to develop intra-ethnic friendships than immigrants who have lived in Germany for longer periods of time suggesting the significance of acculturation and shared values in friendship formation (Titzmann & Silbereisen, 2009). Ethnicity, race, and friendship. Beyond the rather limited cross-cultural, developmental work on friendships, there have been studies of race, ethnicity, and friendships within culturally diverse nations. In general, there is considerable evidence suggesting that children and adolescents form friendships with same-race/ethnicity peers (see Graham et al., 2009, for a recent review). From preschool through high school, with a peak of intensity during middle and late childhood, there is a tendency for students to interact more often with samerace/ethnicity peers more often than with cross-race/ethnicity classmates (e.g., Way & Chen, 2000). Given these differences in the quantity of social interactions with same-race/ethnicity peers, it is unsurprising that race/ethnicity homophily exists in friendship partners (Kao & Joyner, 2004). But, there is some evidence to suggest that acculturation may influence the prevalence of cross-racial/ethnicity friendships. For example, although Kawabata and Crick 25 (2008) have reported that Latino/a Americans are highly likely to engage in same-ethnicity friendships, Updegraff et al. (2006) have found that when Mexican American parents were acculturated into European American culture, their children were more likely to have diverse social networks. In terms of friendship quality, Aboud, Mendelson, and Purdy (2003) reported that the same-race and cross-race friendships of European- and African-Canadian children were similar in quality, although same-race friendships appeared to be more intimate. Schneider, Dixon, and Udvari (2007) reported that East Asian-Canadians had higher quality friendships with same-ethnic peers than with cross-ethnic peers, whereas Indian-Canadian and European-Canadian did not differ qualitatively in their same-ethnic and cross-ethnic friendships. Finally, whereas European American children generally rate their friendships as high in positive friendship qualities, other racial/ethnic groups within North America are less inclined to do so (e.g., Aboud, et al., 2003; Way 2006). For example, Way and colleagues (2001) found that Chinese American young adolescents, particularly boys, reported that their friendships were relatively low in quality. In contrast, Latina-American girls had relatively high quality and intimate friendships relative to African- and Chinese-American youth. In sum, the extant literature on same- and cross-race friendship, albeit limited in number of studies and scope, suggests that some same-ethnic and cross-ethnic friendships are more similar than they are different; in other cases, differences may be greater. Yet, given the sparse data base, clearly much more work is required before a conclusion may be drawn about qualitative differences or similarities in the friendship prevalence, stability and quality of same race/ethnicity and interracial/ethnicity friendships (see Graham et al, 2009 for a recent and relevant review). 26 In summary, the majority of psychological research on children’s friendships has involved middle-class Euro-American and Western European children and young adolescents. Within North America and Western Europe, little attention has been paid to culture and the meanings, provisions, occurrence, and stability of friendship, and the extent to which similarity (homophily) influences friendship (for exceptions, see Azmitia, Ittel, & Brenk, 2006; Graham & Cohen, 1997; Way, 2006). Beyond North America and Western Europe, surprisingly little peer relationships research has focused on friendship. This relative lack of cultural and cross-cultural research is rather surprising given that relationships within varying cultural communities are differentiated along such continua as individualism/autonomy, collectivism/connectedness, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995), each of which has a relationship connotation. For example, in cultures that are relatively more collectivistic, connectedness and conformity within long-term relationships as well as within the community at-large are highly valued. This being the case, choice of friends may be constrained by adult (parental) influence. Moreover, extra-familial friendships may remain less influential than relationships with parents and family members throughout the childhood and adolescent years. In contrast, in relatively more individualistic cultures, children and young adolescents may be freer to make their own choices of friendship, value independence, and more readily relinquish their extra-familial relationships when individual needs are not being met. And in such cultures, autonomy and extra-familial friendships may assume more and earlier significance than is the case in more collectivistic cultures. These “thoughts” about childhood and early adolescent friendships, are just that; little evidence currently exists to support these conjectures. 27 As noted above, power distance is a relevant construct distinguishing between cultures. Some cultures value relationships that are relatively more egalitarian, whereas others may value a hierarchical relationship structure (Hofstede, 1980). Given that this may be the case, friendship, when explored through the lens of culture, may reflect greater-or-lesser propensities in the directions of dominance/submissiveness and egalitarianism. Lastly, uncertainty avoidance involves the extent to which cultures feel comfortable in unstructured situations (Hofstede, 1980). According to Hofstede, uncertainty-avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by adhering to strict laws and rules, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute truth. Consequently, one may expect that rules and regulations pertaining to relationships are clearly demarked through socialization practices. In such cultures, friendships may be selected by parents, not children. And the choice of friendship may be marked by perceived similarities in familial/cultural beliefs and traditions. These notions may be particularly valid for immigrant families (and especially parents) that aspire to cultural (and ethnic, religious) connectedness for their children. In cultures that are more accepting of uncertainty, there may be greater tolerance for philosophical and religious diversity. In this regard, there may be greater degrees of freedom accorded to both the nature of the friendship, who is considered an allowable friend (by parents and family), and how autonomous/independent the friendships (and the individuals) can be. Again, many of these notions have yet to be examined. Concluding Remarks: Parent-Child Relationships, Friendship, and Development in Cultural Context In this chapter, we have reviewed the cross-cultural literature concerning children's dyadic relationships – specifically, parent-child relationships and friendships. From our perspective, most cross-cultural research on relationships has been dominated by an etic framework; 28 Western (mostly North American and Western European) researchers have, by-and-large, assumed that such relationship constructs as attachment and friendship are of equivalent relevance and can be assessed in the same ways across all cultures. However, as we have noted throughout this chapter, this perspective may cause researchers to overlook or miss social conventions that are related to a specific construct in one culture, but are completely unrelated in another culture. Among the many future directions the literature on children’s dyadic relation should take are the study of relations between relationships systems and the long term outcomes of different types of relationships. In the first case, attachment theorists propose that the child who receives responsive and sensitive parenting from the primary caregiver forms an internal working model (IWM) of that caregiver as trustworthy and dependable when needed, as well as develops a model of the self as someone who is worthy of such care (Bowlby, 1969). Through experience with a responsive and sensitive caregiver, the child learns reciprocity in social interactions (Elicker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1992) and a set of specific social skills that can be used in relationships that extend beyond the child-caregiver relationship. Also, the securely attached child is able to use the caregiver as a secure base for exploration (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), including the exploration of relationships with peers. Thus, there is a compelling rationale for proposing that parent-child relationship quality engenders a set of internalized relationship expectations that affect the quality of friendships with peers. Indeed, researchers have found that children with secure attachments to parents have more friends and their friendships are of better quality than those of insecurely attached children (e.g., Kerns et al., 1996; Rubin, Dwyer, Booth-LaForce, Kim, Burgess, & Rose-Krasnor, 2004; Youngblade & Belsky, 1992). Interactions between friendship dyads 29 comprising two securely attached members are more positive, fair, intimate, and responsive than interactions within dyads comprising only one securely attached member. Moreover, securely attached adolescents are viewed by their best friends as being more altruistic and more conciliatory after conflict; also, they are more satisfied with their friendships than the friends of anxious-avoidant or anxious-ambivalent adolescents. While there generally are associations between parent-child attachments and later peer and friend relationships, a child’s attachment relationship to parents is not absolutely deterministic of their later relationships with friends. There are children who are insecurely attached to parents and yet form high-quality friendships. In this way, a good friendship may compensate for the child’s insecure attachment to parents (Rubin et al., 2004). There are virtually no studies of the relations between the quality of the attachment relationships and the quality of extra-familial relationships beyond North America and Western Europe. This represents a vacuum of significant proportion, not only empirically, but also theoretically. A central tenet of attachment theory is that secure attachments predict competent, supportive, and satisfactory friendships and romantic relationships (Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002). It would certainly behoove researchers to investigate, cross-culturally, these relations among relationship systems. As for the long-term outcomes of supportive, secure, and satisfactory dyadic relationships, several North American and Western European researchers have examined relations between relationship systems and the manner in which experiences in both familial and extra-familial relationships may interact to influence psychosocial functioning (e.g., Booth-LaForce, Oh, Kim, Rubin, & Rose-Krasnor, 2006; Rubin et al. 2004). A central focus has been on whether and how friendships may serve to moderate the association between parent-adolescent relationship quality and psychosocial functioning. 30 To begin with, children who feel secure and supported by their primary caregivers have been shown to have higher levels of perceived competence in multiple domains (Kerns et al., 1996), higher self-esteem (Simons, Paternite, & Shore, 2001) and feel less lonely (Kerns et al., 1996). Furthermore, relatively lower security has been associated with both internalizing and externalizing problems (Granot & Mayseless, 2001; McCartney, et al. 2003). The quality of the child-parent attachment relationship has been linked with social competence and adjustment and maladjustment from early childhood through adolescence. As the child matures, however, relationships outside of the home, specifically their friendships, may influence adjustment directly. For example, the long-term influence of friendship quality in early adolescence has been demonstrated in a 12-year longitudinal study by Bagwell, Newcomb, and Bukowski (1998). These researchers found that adolescents without friends, compared with those with friends, had lower self-esteem and more psychopathological symptoms in adulthood. Whether or not friendship predicts psychological outcomes in non-Western countries is, as yet, unknown. Given the significance of both parent-child relationships and friendships in early adolescence, one may speculate that these relationships interact in meaningful ways to predict adjustment. Thus, parent-adolescent relationship and friendship processes may be associated with psychosocial functioning in at least three ways. First, as we have noted above, each may make an independent, unique contribution to predicting adjustment outcomes. Second, the parent-adolescent relationship may provide the basis for the formation of friendships, which in turn are related to psychosocial adjustment. Third, the relation between the parent-adolescent relationship and functioning may be moderated by friendship quality. According to Bowlby (1969), adjustment at any particular stage is the result of the interaction of the individual’s past experiences with current relationships in the 31 larger social environment. Therefore, the early parent-adolescent relationship and friendship experiences may interact with each other to influence psychosocial functioning (e.g., Laible, Carlo, and Raffaelli, 2000). Specifically, a high-quality friendship may buffer the impact of a qualitatively poor parent-adolescent relationship (Booth et al., 1998). We do not suggest that only one of these models is the “correct” model. Rather, it is more likely that all three processes take place to varying degrees, and most importantly, may diverge significantly across cultures. All-in-all, there appears to be much to do in the study of culture and dyadic relationships. We have proposed several new lines of research and we welcome other such theoretically based research programs, some of which may well be underway. 32 REFERENCES Aboud, F., and Mendelson, M. (1998). Determinants of friendship selection and quality: Developmental perspectives. In W. Bukowski and A. Newcomb (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 87–112). New York: Cambridge University Press. Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., & Purdy, K. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165-173. Ainsworth, M. (1967). Infancy in Uganda. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Ainsworth, M. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C.M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.) Attachment Across the Life Cycle. London: Routledge. Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Allen, J.P., McElhaney, K.B., Land, D.J., Kuperminc, G.P., Moore, C.W., O’Beirne-Kelly, H., & Kilmer, S.L. (2003). A secure base in adolescence: Markers of attachment security in the mother adolescent relationship. Child Development, 74, 292-307. Allen, J.P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406-1419. Azmitia, M., Ittel, A., & Brenk, C. (2006). Latino-Heritage Adolescents' Friendships. Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 426-451). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Bagwell, C., Newcomb, A., & Bukowski, W. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69(1), 140-153. 33 Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., & Olsen, J. A. (2006). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70, Serial No. 282, 1–137. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in youth. Youth and Society, 9, 239–276. Behrens, K.Y., Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2007). Mothers’ attachment status as determined by the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds’ reunion responses: A study conducted in Japan. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1553-1567. Bigelow, B. (1977). Children's friendship expectations: A cognitive-developmental study. Child Development, 48(1), 246-253. Booth-LaForce, C.L., Oh, W., Kim, A., Rubin, K.H., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Burgess, K.B. (2006). Attachment, Self-Worth, and Peer-Group Functioning in Middle Childhood. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 309-325. Bornstein, M. H., and Cheah, C. S. L. (2006). The place of “culture and parenting” in the ecological contextual perspective on developmental science. In K. H. Rubin and O. Boon Chung (Eds.), Parental beliefs, parenting, and child development in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3-33). London: Psychology Press. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Burgess, K.B., Marshall, P.J., Rubin, K.H., & Fox, N.A. (2003). Infant attachment and temperament as predictors of subsequent externalizing problems and cardiac physiology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 819-831. Chango, J.M., McElhaney, K.B., & Allen, J.P. (2009). Attachment organization and patterns of conflict resolution in friendships predicting adolescents’ depressive symptoms over time. Attachment and Human Development, 11, 331-346. 34 Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111-1119. Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 59-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chen, X., French, D., and Schneider, B. (2006). Culture and peer relationships. In X. Chen, D. French, and B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 3-20). New York: Cambridge University Press. Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), The handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 331–362). New York: Wiley. Cutrona, C.E., & Russell, D. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In W.H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting styles and psychological adjustment of Arab adolescents. Transcultural Psychiatry, 41(2), 233-252. Dwairy, M. & Achoui, M. (2006). Introduction to three cross-regional research studies on parenting styles, individuation, and mental health in the Arab societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37 (3), 221-229. Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., & Farah A. (2006). Parenting styles, individuation, and mental health of Arab adolescents: A third cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 262-272. 35 Edwards, C. P. (1992). Cross-cultural perspective on family-peer relations. In R. D. Parke and G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 285–316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Losoya, S., Zhou, Q., Cumberland, A., Liew, J., & Maxon, E. (2008). Understanding mother-adolescent conflict discussions: Concurrent and across-time prediction from youths’ dispositions and parenting. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development (Vol. 72). Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Lapsley, A.-M. and Roisman, G. I. (2010), The Significance of Insecure Attachment and Disorganization in the Development of Children’s Externalizing Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Study. Child Development, 81, 435–456. French, D. C. (2004). The cultural context of friendhips. ISSBD Newsletter, 28, 19-20. French, D., Jansen, E., Riansari, M., and Setiono, K. (2003). Friendships of Indonesian children: adjustment of children who differ in friendship presence and similarity between mutual friends. Social Development, 12, 606-621. French, D., Lee, O., and Pidada, S. (2006). Friendships of Indonesian, South Korean, and U.S. Youth: Exclusivity, intimacy, enhancement of worth, and conflict. In X. Chen, D. French, and B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 379402). New York: Cambridge University Press. French, D., Pidada, S., Denoma, J., McDonald, K., and Lawton, A. (2005). Reported peer conflicts of children in the United States and Indonesia. Social Development, 14, 458472. French, D., Pidada, S., and Victor, A. (2005). Friendships of Indonesian and United States youth. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 304-313. 36 Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of friendship perceptions: Conceptual and methodological issues. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W.W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 41–65). NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents' working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73, 241–255. Gaskins, S. (2006). The cultural organization of Yucatec Mayan children's social interactions. Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 283-309). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. Gonzalez, Y., Moreno, D., and Schneider, B. (2004). Friendship expectations of early adolescents in Cuba and Canada. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 436-445. Graham, S., Taylor, A., & Ho, A. (2009). Race and ethnicity in peer relations research. In K.H. Rubin, W. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.) Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 394-413). New York, NY US: Guilford Press. Greenfield, P., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461-490. Grossmann, K.E., Grossmann, K., Franz, H., & Wartner, U. (1981). German children’s behavior toward their mothers at 12 months and their fathers at 18 months in Ainsworth’s strange situation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 4, 157-181. Gummerum, M., & Keller, M. (2008). Affection, virtue, pleasure, and profit: Developing an understanding of friendship closeness and intimacy in western and Asian societies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(3), 218-231. 37 Gurucharri, C., Phelps, E., & Selman, R. (1984). Development of interpersonal understanding: A longitudinal and comparative study of normal and disturbed youths. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 26-36. Harkness, S., and Super, C. M. (2002). Culture and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 253–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Harkness, S., Super, C. M., & van Tijen, N. (2000). Individualism and the “Western mind” reconsidered: American and Dutch parents’ ethnotheories of children and family. In S. Harkness, C. Raeff & C. M. Super (Eds.), Variability in the social construction of the child (Vol. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 87, pp. 23–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hartup, W. W., & Laursen, B. (1991). Relationships as developmental contexts. In R. Cohen & A. W. Siegel (Eds.), Context and development (pp. 253–279). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships, and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Howes, C., and Wu, F. (1990). Peer interactions and friendships in an ethnically diverse school setting. Child Development, 61, 537-541. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and Human Development Across Cultures A View From the Other Side. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale. 38 Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 36, 403-422. Kao, G., and Joyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends? Activities among interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic adolescent friends. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 557-573. Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. (2008). The role of cross-racial/ethnic friendships in social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1177-1183. Keller, M., Schuster, P., & Edelstein, W. (1993). Universal and differential aspects of the development of socio-moral reasoning: Results from a study of Icelandic and Chinese children. Zeitschrift fü Sozialisationforschung und Erzienhungssoziologie, 13, 149– 160. Keller, M., & Wood, P. (1989). Development of friendship reasoning: A study of interindividual differences in intraindividual change. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 820-826. Kermoian, R. & Leiderman, P.H. (1986). Infant attachment to mother and child caretaker in an East African community. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 455-469. Killen, M., and Wainryb, C. (2000). Independence and interdependence in diverse cultural contexts. In S. Harkness, C. Raeff, and C. M. Super (Eds.), Variability in the social construction of the child (pp. 5-21). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kim, K. W. (2006). “Hyo” and parenting in Korea. In K. H. Rubin and O. B. Chung (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, parenting, and child development in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 207-222). New York: Psychology Press. Korea Survey (1991). The youth of the world and Korea. Seoul, Korea: Korea Survey Gallup Polls. 39 Laursen, B., Furman. W., & Mooney, K. S. (2006). Predicting interpersonal competence and self-worth from adolescent relationships and relationship networks: Variablecentered and person-centered perspectives. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(3), 572-600. Laursen, B, & Mooney, K. S. (2008). Relationship network quality: Adolescent adjustment and perceptions of relationships with parents and friends. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 47-53. Lee, E. H., & Lee, K. W. (1990). The Korean mothers’ socialization process for children (in Korean). Seoul: Ehwa Women’s University. Li, X., Jing, J., & Yang, D. (2004). Characters of 75 infants’ attachment toward their mothers.Chinese Mental Health Journal, 18, 291-293. McCall, G. J. (1988). The organizational life cycle of relationships. In S.Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 467–486). New York: Wiley. McCartney, K., Owen, M.T., Booth, C., Vandell, D.L., & Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (2003). Testing a maternal attachment model of behavior problems in early childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 1-14. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. Miyake, K., Chen, S., & Campos, J.J. (1985). Infant temperament, mother’s mode of interaction, and attachment in Japan: An interim report. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 276-297. Oppenheim, D., Sagi, A., & Lamb, M.E. (1988). Infant-adult attachments on the Kibbutz and their relation to socioemotional development 4 years later. Developmental Psychology, 24, 427 433. 40 Parker, J., and Gottman, J. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context: Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In T. J. Berndt and G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 95-131). Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Rohner, R. P., & Pettengill, S. M. (1985). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and parental control among Korean adolescents. Child Development, 56(2), 524-528. Rose-Krasnor, L., Rubin, K.H., Booth, C.L., & Coplan, R.J. (1996). Maternal directiveness and child attachment security as predictors of social competence in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 309-325. Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55, 1093-1104. Rubin, K., Bukowski, W., and Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, and R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571-645). New York: Wiley. Rubin, K., Cheah, C., & Menzer, M. (2010). Peers. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 223-237). New York: Psychology Press. Rubin, K.H. & Chung, O. B. (Eds.) (2006) Parental Beliefs, Parenting, and Child Development in Cross-Cultural Perspective. London, UK: Psychology Press. Rubin, K. H., Oh, W., Ashktorab, S., Rhee, U., Jung, S., & Kim, A. H. (2006, July). Children’s perceptions of their parent-child relationships: A cross-cultural study of US, South Korea, and Oman. Paper presented at invited symposium, Social Relationships in Changing Cultural Context (X. Chen & R. Sharabany, Co-chairs). (Invited Paper 41 Symposium). 19th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Melbourne, Australia. Schneider, B., Woodburn, S., Soteras-de Toro, M., and Udvari, S. (2005). Cultural and gender differences in the implications of competition for early adolescent friendship. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 163-191. Schwarz, B., Trommsdorff, G., Kim, U., & Park, Y.-S. (2006). Intergenerational support: Psychological and cultural analyses of Korean and German women. Current Sociology, 54(2), 315-340. Selman, R. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic Press. Sharabany, R. (2006). The Cultural Context of Children and Adolescents: Peer Relationships and Intimate Friendships Among Arab and Jewish Children in Israel. In X. Chen, D. French, and B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 452-478). New York: Cambridge University Press. Takahashi, K. (1986). Examining the strange-situation procedure with Japanese mothers and 12-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 22, 265-270. Takahashi, K., Ohara, N., Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (2002). Commonalities and differences in close relationships among the Americans and Japanese: A comparison by the individualism/collectivism concept. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 453–465. The Arab Woman Developmental Report. (2003). Alfatat al Arabeyah al Moraheqah [The Arab adolescent girls]. Beirut, Lebanon: Kawtar. 42 Titzmann, P., & Silbereisen, R. (2009). Friendship homophily among ethnic German immigrants: A longitudinal comparison between recent and more experienced immigrant adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 301-310. Titzmann, P., Silbereisen, R., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2007). Friendship homophily among diaspora migrant adolescents in Germany and Israel. European Psychologist, 12(3), 181-195. Tomlinson, M., Cooper, P., & Murray, L. (2005). The mother-infant relationship and infant attachment in a South African peri-urban settlement. Child Development, 76, 10441054. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., and Asai, M. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338. Updegraff, K., McHale, S., Whiteman, S., Thayer, S., & Crouter, A. (2006). The Nature and Correlates of Mexican-American Adolescents' Time With Parents and Peers. Child Development, 77(5), 1470-1486. van Ijzendoorn, M.H. & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (1996). Attachment representations in mothers, fathers, adolescents, and clinical groups: A meta-analytic search for normative data. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 64 8-21. Van iJzendoorn, M.H. & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy and P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment 2nd Edition (pp. 880-905). New York: Guilford Press. Wainryb, C. (2004). Is and ought: Moral judgments about the world as understood. In B. Sokol & J. Baird (Eds.), New directions for child development: Mind, morals, and action: The 43 interface between children's theories of mind and socio-moral development. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Way, N. (2006). The Cultural Practice of Close Friendships Among Urban Adolescents in the United States. Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 403-425). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. Way, N., and Chen, L. (2000). Close and general friendships among African American, Latino, and Asian American adolescents from low-income families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 274-301. Way, N., Cowal, K., Gingold, R., Pahl, K., & Bissessar, N. (2001). Friendship patterns among African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents from low-income families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 29-53. Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17-26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Whiting, J., and Child, I. (1953). Child training and personality: A cross-cultural study. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Xu, Y., Farver, J., Chang, L., Yu, L., and Zhang, Z. (2006). Culture, family contexts, and children's coping strategies in peer interactions. In X. Chen, D. French, and B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 264-280). New York: Cambridge University Press. Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A Sullivan-Piaget perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. View publication stats

Log In

Dyadic relationships from a cross cultural perspective: Parent-child relationships and friendship

Dyadic relationships from a cross cultural perspective: Parent-child relationships and friendship

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS