Talk:Attachment in children

Released June 29, 2006

This is part of a modification to the organization of attachment-related pages. kc62301

Adjusted the comment about securely attached children getting upset when a care giver leaves. It is incorrect to state this: one of the key features of a securely attached child is that s/he doesn't get overly upset when a care giver leaves, but will also gree the care giver positively on their subsequent return.

In the description of the different types (Ainsworth, M., et. al., Patterns of Attachment) in regard to the strange situation, the securely attached children will express some level of distress upon separation. Expressing no distress is an indicator of one of the insecure sub-types; the avoidant. DPeterson^talk 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, I applaud the changes you note above. I am a reliable coder for the organized ABC infant strange situation categories. I am reliable with colleagues at the University of Minnesota. Soon I hope to be reliable with Disorganization with the same colleagues and M.Main. It is important to note that most of the coding that is relevant in the SSituation is done upon reunion. A child may not express distress upon separation and still be judged secure however. For example, many B1 and B2 infants tend not to be distressed upon the absence of the caregiver or quickly calm. It is often true also that avoidant infants will not be at all upset during the mothers absence or leave-taking. However, most classifications are not formalized until the reunions are observed. MrVain68

RalphLender, I think you'll find that concerns about temperament are among the most important attachment research issues today. See, for example, Carol Tavris's book review in the Times Literary Supplement last October. Situational variables are also important, otherwise no standardized protocol would be needed, right?Jean Mercer 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly empirical. DPeterson^talk 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, not like DDP. Well, never mind; I only contributed here to see what you guys would do, and I wasn't surprised.Jean Mercer 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

DDP

I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. (Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way.) A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of ArbCom it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, User:DPeterson, User:RalphLender, User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, the latter four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten. Fainites ^barley 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - all 5 are now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of DPeterson, and DPeterson has been banned for 1 year by ArbCom.[1] Fainites ^barley 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 - User:AWeidman, AKA Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk and Dr Art has now also been indef. banned for breach of the ban on his sockpuppet DPeterson.Fainites ^barley 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Treatment section

In the context as it stands, this section implies that treatment is required for different attachment styles. Is this intentional?Jean Mercer 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Attachment Theory?

This article is VERY redundant of what is already written in Attachment Theory. The scope of this article should be limited to high-level summary of what is written there and issues not covered there. Does this article have enough meat to justify its existence independent of that article? Although, I do think this article is better written and maybe some of this content should be lifted to improve the other article. Steve carlson 00:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What about three articles, but divided this way:

1) Attachment theory (including history), with a great deal more discussion of actual theory (almost unmentioned in the present piece), and a minimum of other stuff

2) Attachment behavior (both children and adults), including attachment measures, which now is a separate article. this would include a discussion of parent-infant bonding.

3) Attachment therapy (broad definition, including attachment-related treatments as well as the unconventional ones)Jean Mercer 11:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa Jean Mercer, I just wrote almost exactly the same thing on the Attachment theory talk page. Please see my discussion there, but I think this proposal makes sense in light of the three major audiences (layperson, student, clinician) who would be looking to consume this information. Steve carlson 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is attachment in adults etc attachment theory. Most people when they think of attachment theory think of Bowlby and his successors. We need to decide whether the attachment theory article is going to deal with that in depth, or provide a brief overview with a link to this one. My preference would be for the attachment theory article o deal primarily with attachment theory per Bowlby - ie relation primarily to children etc, and to have a separate article dealing with attachment behaviour in adults. Attachment therapy is a little tricky because popularly it means a particular form of largely unvalidated therapies based on very controversial diagnoses of the controversial description of attachment disorder.. Fainites ^barley 22:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering how much content we have on Attachment in adults, I think it certainly deserves its own article! However, I do think that each of the other three articles (maybe not the clinical one) should mention that the Bowlby/Ainsworth model has been extended to adults and provide a "Main article" link to the full article. Steve carlson 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Fainites ^barley 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Infant page!

Attachment is the primary task of the first year of life (infancy). Through attachment, trust is developed by the infant. This basis of trust is what enables the infant to have the courage to explore in the second year of life (toddlerhood). For an infant to learn trust and have an attachment to at least one adult or caregiver is absolutely critical for development. Professors who teach Infant/Toddler Development would be horrified to learn that attachment is not even mentioned on the Infant/newborn page. Link the Infant page to attachment theory if you must. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelmrobertson (talk • contribs) 05:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and link it by all means. I'm not sure merging is the right thing though. I didn't even know there was an 'infant' page. Why don't you put a potted synopsis of attachment in a section on the infant page with a 'main article' link ? Meanwhile I've put this article in the 'see also' section'. Fainites ^barley 22:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stranger and stranger. There is an article called Child development that makes no mention of attachment but is well referenced, another called Infant which makes no mention of attachment, and yet another called Infant And Child Development which is written more like an essay, but does contain a section on attachment! I would have thought either you have one on Infant and Child development or one on each. The Infant article is more purely descriptive. Fainites ^barley 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stranger and Stranger, Still! Do NOT merge REDIRECT!

What is even stranger is that there is a page called 'Human bonding' and another for 'male' as well as 'female' bonding.

What is the reason for this proliferation of pages on bonding and attachment?

I suggest it is because many people are not aware of the scientific discipline. They write what they see and feel without really knowing about the research that has already taken place.

If pages were merged I believe they would only reappear under slightly different titles as more people want to make a contribution.

I would suggest keep the other pages but redirect, (also removing their content), to the primary page on the Attachment Theory, thus reinforcing the point that all these issues are linked to the same topic.

(Please see the page on Human bonding so see where I am coming from).

Kingsley Miller KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think there's a case for a separate page on Infant and Child development. Attachment is only one aspect. The trouble is, if people don't cover redirects and disambiguation pages, a person writing an article called 'Infant' may simply be unaware of others called 'Infant and Child' or Infant development' whatever. if you don't do redirects they're even case sensitive. Fainites ^barley 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Critique of The Strange Situation Protocol

This is a VERBATIM quotation. If you alter or change it in anyway it is no longer accurate. Please leave this section alone and make whatever points you wish elsewhere. KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rejoinder to the Critique of the Strange Situation

Using brackets in quotations acknowledges the fact that it is not part of the quotation. The verbatim quote, without context, is misleading and not fully informative. I have created a separate section so as to honor your wishes although brackets would have offered a much better layout. MrVain68 —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One should consult Behrens, et al., 2007 for a complete discussion of the issue surrouding the meanings that separations and reunions have for different infants, particularly in Japanese cultures. In addition, it should be noted that continuous measures of attachment security have been developed which have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. These have been used either individually or in conjunction with discrete attachment classifications in many published reports [see Richters et al., 1998; van Ijzendoorn et al., 1990). ] The original Richter’s et al. (1998) scale is strongly related to secure versus insecure classifications, correctly predicting about 90% of cases . Readers further interested in the categorical versus continuous nature of attachment classifications (and the debate surrounding this issue) should consult the paper by Fraley and Spieker and the rejoinders in the same issue by many prominent attachment researchers including J. Cassidy, A. Sroufe, E. Waters & T. Beauchaine, and M. Cummings.

References

Reply to Rejoinder to the Critique of the Strange Situation

The original quote is not misleading at all and speaks for itself. The Rejoinder is out of context and should be included in the page allocated to 'Attachment measures' which I have cited and also mentions the Strange Situation Protocol.

The original article made it appear that the Strange Situation Protocol is forensically proven ie that diagnosis using this method is conclusive. This is a dangerous precedent to set in the realms of Social Science especially when it comes to Child Psychology and your own interjection goes some way to show that there are so many riders to the original research that it has lost part of its meaning.

You may feel that the work by Mary Ainsworth is invaluable but the way to approach the subject is not to print a Rejoinder in this fashion. We are all entitled to an opinion and if you want to make the points you raise above please go to the appropriate page cited which I feel already deals with many of the issues you have raised and allow the critique to be judged on its own merits.

Many thanks,

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SEE BELOW - (Taken from 'Attachment measures')

Measuring Attachment in Children

Main article: Attachment in children

Main article: Attachment theory

Some methods are based observation of infants and toddlers either in natural or 'arranged' situations. Other methods, suitable for older children, are based on asking children to complete Stem Stories, respond to pictures or to describe their relationships.

[edit] The Strange Situation

Mary Ainsworth is a developmental psychologist who devised a procedure called The Strange Situation, to observe attachment relationships between a human caregiver and child. [1] It was further developed by Main and Solomon in 1986 and 1990 to include the new category of disorganized/disoriented attachment.[2] [3] It is designed for children aged between 9 and 18 months.

In this procedure the child is observed playing for 20 minutes while caregivers and strangers enter and leave the room, recreating the flow of the familiar and unfamiliar presence in most children's lives. The situation varies in stressfulness and the child's responses are observed. The child experiences the following situations:

1. Mother and baby enter room.

2. Mother sits quietly on a chair, responding if the infant seeks attention.

3. A stranger enters, talks to the mother then gradually approaches infant with a toy. The mother leaves the room.

4. The stranger leaves the infant playing unless he/she is inactive and then tries to interest the infant in toys. If the infant becomes distressed this episode is ended.

5. Mother enters and waits to see how the infant greets her. The stranger leaves quietly and the mother waits until the baby settles, and then she leaves again.

6. The infant is alone. This episode is curtailed if the infant appears to be distressed.

7. The stranger comes back and repeats episode 3.

8. The mother returns and the stranger goes. Reunion behaviour is noted and then the situation is ended.

Two aspects of the child's behaviour are observed:

• The amount of exploration (e.g. playing with new toys) the child engages in throughout, and
• The child's reactions to the departure and return of its caregiver.

[edit] Critique of The Strange Situation

Professor Sir Michael Rutter describes the procedure in the following terms in 'The Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts' from the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 36 No 4, pp. 552-553, (See also the video clips, 'Bonding - The Attachment Theory' and 'The Strange Situation Procedure'),

"It is by no means free of limitations (see Lamb, Thompson, Gardener, Charnov & Estes, 1984). To begin with, it is very dependent on brief separations and reunions having the same meaning for all children. This maybe a major constraint when applying the procedure in cultures, such as that in Japan (see Miyake, Chen & Campos, 1985), where infants are rarely separated from their mothers in ordinary circumstances. Also, because older children have a cognitive capacity to maintain relationships when the older person is not p[resent, separation may not provide the same stress for them. Modified procedures based on the Strange Situation have been developed for older preschool children (see Belsky & Cassidy, 1994; Greenberg et al., 1990) but it is much more dubious whether the same approach can be used in middle childhood. Also, despite its manifest strengths, the procedure is based on just 20 minutes of behaviour. It can be scarcely expected to tap all the relevant qualities of a child's attachment relationships. Q-sort procedures based on much longer naturalistic observations in the home, and interviews with the mothers have developed in order to extend the data base (see Vaughn & Waters, 1990). A further constraint is that the coding procedure results in discrete categories rather than continuously distributed dimensions. Not only is this likely to provide boundary problems, but also it is not at all obvious that discrete categories best represent the concepts that are inherent in attachment security. It seems much more likely that infants vary in their degree of security and there is need for a measurement systems that can quantify individual variation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

The Rutter quote is an opinion in and of itself. If it is the case that my opinion in the rejoinder should be moved, so should yours. I clearly state in re: the Strange Situation classifications that they are NOT clinical diagnoses. Again, if the rejoinder goes in a different section, then it would mean, ipso facto, that the Rutter quote should as well. After all, they are both opinions--ones from highly regarded theoreticians and researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrvain68 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Rutter's quote is already in the other section - Please check. Your REJOINDER is not appropriate. It is about different forms of measurement. Go to the other section and amend if necessary. You do not like what I say but this does not give you the right to upset the encyclopedic convention. The clarifications I have made are balanced, objective and relevant to both pages. They give a different perspective on an important topic - You are trying to present your own opinion as scientific fact, just like the original article, and this is wrong.

To state that I am trying to present my own opinions as scientific fact is preposterous. I simply present the reader with relevant research and do not suggest they should think one way or the other. If the clarifications you have made are balanced and objective, then the additional cites and sentences I have added are also fair and balanced. It is about presenting the reader with the totality of evidence---which you do not do. If the reader, after consulting your Rutter quote, and perhaps additional references in re: the limitations that Rutter addresses, comes to their OWN decision that the limitations of the Strange Situation outweight the potential utility of it, then that is fine. However, to withhold from the reader relevant information pertaining to Rutter's quote is poor judgment.

Opinions2

I now see that you have removed the CRITIQUE. This is not simply wrong, it is very wrong. People reading this page should be aware that the procedure has serious limitations. The title '& Beyond' is totally unsuitable and borders on vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

Committing blatant vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia, you should revert the changes and warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OUT OF LINE

KingsleyMiller I appreciate your attempts to make ludicrous accusations in re: my vandalism. The idea that what I am doing is vandalism is simply preposterous (did you even read the definition above?) as is the idea that your commentary on the limitations of the Strange Situation should be in this section without appropriate rebuttal (non-adverserial) as to why these so-called limitations may or may not be limitations. I have no problem with the inclusion of your section in the appropriate article, as you have deemed mine to be. If you feel that mine should be moved, so should your commentary on the limitations. They both could be referenced with a redirect. THEY ARE OF THE SAME ACCORD. Not only is it quite misleading to say that the Strange Situation has serious limitations without a full discussion of them, it is also misleading to imply this at the end of the article, dismissing attempts to point out that many of these limitations you 'block quote' Rutter on, have been addressed. By no means am I unaware of limitations of the Strange Situation--I conduct about three a week--but the framework in which you have addressed this is poorly done, misleading, and ambiguous. Further, you have demonstrated that you feel you can move others' content---which is unbiasedly included--while keeping yours intact, which is misleading without context. You point out that I may have an affinity for Mary Ainsworth, or the Strange Situation itself, but it should be duly noted that you appear to be a fan of M. Rutter (whose research I have read in depth and find brilliant). My friend, what you have done by removing my text is more vandalism then what I have done. I never deleted any of your original text. You pointed out that my brackets interferred with the integrity of a quote (which it did not) and I responded to appease you. Then you decided that you felt my information--including valuable references---should be moved seemingly at your fancy as to what is and what is not appropriate. That is more close to vandalism then what you accuse me of. I have tried to be patient and understanding of your thoughts, but to be called a vandal is simply out of line on your part. I suggest you re-read the definition, think about what you are saying, and let's propose a mutual resolution to this matter. Perhaps one solution could be to take the Strange Situation out of this article entirely, moving it to attachment measures? Let me know what you think about that. If the Strange Situation is presented in this article, it is to describe the procedure. In describing the procedure I have not laid claims to it being free of limitations. In fact, I have graciously redirected readers to a fuller discussion of this topic, including your text, which you have double-posted both there and in this article. Again, this illustrates partial hegemony on your part. In the meantime, I will make the necessary changes back. It is my hope you do not see this or my use of a term "& Beyond" which implies "future directions" or "additional discourse" as vandalism. talk

Suggestion

Can the material not be amalgamated into a section on limitations, critiques, further research etc on Strange Situation? Attachment is a relatively young and developing field. There is no one definitive answer. Could you also both remember to sign yourselves with four of these ~ as the argument gets a little difficult to follow.Fainites ^barley 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion2

[[User_talk:Fainites|barley] Thank you for this kind intervention. This section is primarily on the Strange Situation Protocol. This particular form of measurement has a number of limitations so much so that there are many alternatives which are featured on the WIK page Attachment measures. contribs) seems to have a vested interest in the Strange Situation Protocol and has taken exception to the clarification I have made at the end of the page on Attachment in Children. His criticisms of myself are unfounded. He has accused me of altering the his content when all I have sought to do is add the quote from Rutter.

I should also like to point you to the page on Attachment measures. I feel my paragraph adds to the article. As you are aware I have included extracts which compliment other pages. However the REJOINDER has no place and should be amalgamated as you suggest.

I do not believe the extract from Rutter should be withheld from 'Attachment in Children' as most professionals working in the field now agree the procedures should not be used in isolation but only to compliment other procedures.

I include the section I added below;-

Critique of the Strange Situation Protocol

However it should also be noted that there are professional reservations regarding the use of the The Strange Situation Protocol as a definitive measurement of attachment. Professor Sir Michael Rutter describes the procedure in the following terms in 'The Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts' from the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 36 No 4, pp. 552-553, (See also the video clips, 'Bonding - The Attachment Theory' and 'The Strange Situation Procedure'),

"It is by no means free of limitations (see Lamb, Thompson, Gardener, Charnov & Estes, 1984). To begin with, it is very dependent on brief separations and reunions having the same meaning for all children. This maybe a major constraint when applying the procedure in cultures, such as that in Japan (see Miyake, Chen & Campos, 1985), where infants are rarely separated from their mothers in ordinary circumstances. Also, because older children have a cognitive capacity to maintain relationships when the older person is not present, separation may not provide the same stress for them. Modified procedures based on the Strange Situation have been developed for older preschool children (see Belsky & Cassidy, 1994; Greenberg et al., 1990) but it is much more dubious whether the same approach can be used in middle childhood. Also, despite its manifest strengths, the procedure is based on just 20 minutes of behaviour. It can be scarcely expected to tap all the relevant qualities of a child's attachment relationships. Q-sort procedures based on much longer naturalistic observations in the home, and interviews with the mothers have developed in order to extend the data base (see Vaughn & Waters, 1990). A further constraint is that the coding procedure results in discrete categories rather than continuously distributed dimensions. Not only is this likely to provide boundary problems, but also it is not at all obvious that discrete categories best represent the concepts that are inherent in attachment security. It seems much more likely that infants vary in their degree of security and there is need for a measurement systems that can quantify individual variation".

For a fuller discussion of this subject see Attachment measures.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Its quite common in my understanding for a variety of measures to be used in research - probably in diagnosis as well. There are many reasons for this - not least because SSP only applies to a limited age group, only classifies attachment styles and not disorders, because such children may have problems across multiple domains and because it is in any event a difficult and complex area. This doesn't mean the SSP is wrong. I'd be surprised of Ainsworth and Main ever expected it to be the be all and end all themselves - but it is still a much used and well validated tool. I would have thought the limitations of the SSP could be set out in a more encyclopaedic way than just a huge quote from Rutter, together with other methods that have arisen to fill the gaps. There are still huge gaps anyway. I've been gradually adding various measures to the Attachment measures page when I have time but there's still more to go. WMIC for one. Also - there's no detail on Crittendens one. Fainites ^barley 15:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mountebank

Fainites,

Once again thank you for this. However the Strange Situation Protocol is unusual because many, I would say most, professionals working in this field would suggest NOT using this technique in isolation. Many would advise against it saying that it should be used in conjunction with another form of measurement for verification purposes. In other words they dispute its reliability.

I do not think you are from a Social Sciences background therefore I hope you don't mind me making further points.

Why do people get so upset when the Strange Situation Protocol is criticised?

To answer this question you must look at your own postings on 'attachment' which suggest that it has an ethological or biological basis, a la John Bowlby.

Well, if this is TRUE then there should be a STANDARD response from ALL babies.

In reality the response is different!

If you see my video clip on the Strange Situation Procedure you will see that as well as Japanese children, Aborigine children, do NOT respond in the same way as Bowlby's theory predicts thus questioning the original premise.

Why is my addition to the page on Child Attachment so obnoxious?

Because the person who wrote the original page spends a lot of their time going through this procedure with parents. He has set himself up as an expert on the back of this Wikipedia page. He does not want somebody like myself coming along and putting the seed of doubt in clients minds. It is bad for business.

But it is not bad for children to know the limitations of the Protocol and that is the reason I have included the quote from Rutter.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My postings generally relate to attachment theory - which is Bowlby. There are other views on attachment. There is a criticism section on the Att. theory page but nobody's put much in it yet. I don't think its right, Kip, to accuse others of bad faith. After all, attachment theory is pretty mainstream stuff and its more likely that people who believe in it do so because they think Bowlby got it pretty much right, rather than for financial motives. I kind of think that if making money was your primary motive you wouldn't choose to become a Strange Situation procedure coder! I agree that there ought to be a description of the limitations of the SSP, as does Mrvain68, and the ongoing developments of further measures/diagnosis methods. its just that they ought to be written in a comprehensive encyclopaedic fashion, rather than like an ongoing argument. Fainites ^barley 22:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainities2

Had a quick look at page in question.

If you look at my page on Maternal Dep or PSM Rutter at the bottom of each page you will see some significant differences in the Attachment theory identified by Rutter. Perhaps these need to be incorporated in the AT page?

kip —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 09:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowlby recognised very early on that there was no reason why a child couldn't form a primary attachment to a father - or indeed any caregiver. In general the Attachment therapy article uses the phrase caregiver rather than Mother. In most of the worlds history - and today - the word mother would be right. It isn't done to be exclusionary. It was just a recognition of social reality. They did do quite a bit early on about hierarchies of attachments as well. I don't think you give Bowlby credit for developing a theory over a long period of time. 'Imprinting' was pretty early on and only one of many informative pieces if research. It all took time to work out (over 30 years) and its basic tenets have stood up well to experimentation. One of the most significant things was the incorporation of evolutionary and ethological understanding together with recognition of the primacy of relationships as opposed to psychoanalytical type drives (he being a psychoanalyst). The psychoanalysts cast him from their presence for this.

One should remember that popular conceptions about scientific theories are usually decades out of date - particularly when they capture the public imagination. You'd be amazed how many men still believe in penis envy. I suspect the same occured with Bowlby and maternal deprivation to some extent. I don't think what Rutter said about Bowlby 30 years ago is his necessarily his most important contribution.

What is it that you thought needed to go in Attachment therapy? I was only giving a very potted version of attachment theory on the AT page to help with clarifying for readers the huge difference between AT beliefs and theories and what attachment theory is - given that ATers claim their ideas are based on attachment theory - and specifically Bowlby - when they are not. He gets named quite a lot by them in their literature.Fainites ^barley 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainities3

My reference was to your own comment.

See either of the 2 pages I refer to above.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Quite

Kip, This is not the case. You are assumming. I do in fact as I have mentioned see the limitations of the Strange Situation on a daily basis. Children between 12 and 20 months of age are not going to understand the limitations of the Strange Situation anyway...they don't have the cognitive capacity yet to understand something like that. Your addition is not obnoxious. I never said it was. In fact I welcomed it. I just think that by allowing the Rutter critique to stand alone, you are misrepresenting the limitations. In fact, one of the weaker points Rutter notes is that they are classifications. Continuous measures of security derived from the Strange Situation have been used for quite some time. Consult van Ijzendoorn et al. as you seem to be fairly well-read. If you feel then that I should organize the response to the Rutter quote in a more encyclopedic form, then I will without a doubt. But clearly you appear to be pushing your own agenda with the Rutter quote as much as you claim that I am working with clients (I'm not clinical) and other assumptions you make in re: my page. "I set myself up as an expert on the back of my page" not sure if that is quite accurate partner...I simply say that I have an interest in attachment theory. In fact, you seem to have set yourself up as an expert just becuase M. Rutter looked at a book you sent him. On a more convivial note: can you add the Lamb reference Rutter quotes to the references section? Mrvain68 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way - theres a reply on your talkpage about those little mystery numbers. Fainites ^barley 10:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Change

The changes made here and elsewhere represent a significant step forward in bringing a better understanding of Child Psychology to readers.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mother to Caregiver?

Would it be possible to change the references from mother to caregiver?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

I think this article ought to be renamed "Attachment patterns in children" or "attachment styles in children". Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

links

What is wrong with the see also's I added. They seem relevant to the topic. SultanOfFaint (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

See [2].Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for first paragraph

This information is widely known. Much of it can be found in Bowlby, Attachment, Chapter 14, and in various college textbooks addressing child development, primates and brain development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC) --Margaret9mary (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename

I propose that this article be renamed "Attachment patterns in children" as that is essentially what it is about. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Infant Attachment--(anthropology, physiology and child development)

Attachment is the ability to sustain long-term close relationships with others. All attachment behaviors in humans begin with the foundation of the first relationships in infancy.

Attachment theory is an interdisciplinary study that doesn't just consider infant attachment in modern western cultures, but throughout the world and throughout history. Humans are extremely adaptable--some grow up in extended families of 30-100 people who they see on a regular basis or they may grow up seeing only 1 or 2 people. Whether their world is urban or rural, rich or poor, temperate climate or extreme--what are the things that all babies need? And what are the constants--the patterns of behaviors that continue to exist despite our modern way of life?

Attachment in infancy concerns first relationships. This is a time of pattern formation--laying the foundations for all future relatedness. It's an extraordinary time for brain development--post-natal development of the brain in humans is far greater than in animals. The human infant is born with a minimum amount of wiring for behaviors--but instead has behavioral systems for learned behavior that must be activated and developed. The human infant brain doubles in size in the first year. This is like growing a new brain! Programming is established that is a result of what the infant experiences. The relationships an infant has in the first year will literally shape their brain and it's programming. Perceptions and emotions, emotion regulation, empathy--the capacity to perceive others as equally human as we are--develop during this time, and a baby's first communication is pre-verbal.

Bowlby spoke of our human EEA--environment of evolutionary adaptedness--the circumstances in which humans developed social and cognitive behaviors which was originally that of small band of hunter-gatherers. Making the connections between what Bowlby wrote and what is known in other fields outside the field of Attachment theory about infants and infant developmentneeds to be considered.Margaret9mary (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)