Talk:Attachment theory/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Attachment theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Attachment in Religion

Is there another article for that? see Message for 24th February 2008 The term attachment or nonattachment is specially important in Buddhism and Hinduism.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.115 (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there should be another article on it. This particular article is about attachment theory (as in Bowlby) rather than attachment in general.Fainites ^barley 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I can't believe that the first comment in this section is correctly attributed to Suttie. Comments, anyone?Jean Mercer (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither does the second comment come from Suttie. N.B. the problem seems to have to do with the referencing-- the citation is correct when you look at the editable version.

This section needs to include the ideas of Sroufe about attachment as an organizational construct, and more recent work on the taxonomy of the attachment 'styles".Jean Mercer (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted the refs out. It was Wootton not Suttie. Fainites ^barley 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One is Wootton, but isn't the other Gewirtz?Jean Mercer (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently so. I didn't put the refs in. I just sorted out the fields so what was edited shows properly. They seem like rather old criticisms. Isn't there anything else? Fainites ^barley 00:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i added some.

Now, what about that statement from Ainsworth, about attachment being an emotional tie? This is a common description of attachment, but is really pretty meaningless. A tie? That metaphor doesn't really work very well, because real things that tie, are tied at both ends in the same way. But attachment ties the child to the adult, and whatever ties the adult has to the child, they function in a different way than the child's ties do. E.g.,the child turns to the adult when feeling ill, but adults are likely to try to move away from their children when they are not well. (Unfortunately the adult's distancing triggers the child's wish for proximity, so you might as well bite the bullet to begin with.) So, can i get away with re-writing that part? Jean Mercer (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OOOPs, just realized i never added that Sroufe, or the taxonomy. Must look for those papers. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thats quote that always gets put in about attachment being a tie that 'endures over space and time' etc etc. Fainites ^barley 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeahbut-- what does it mean? Is that why it's never paraphrased, that nobody knows exactly what the emotional tie part means? As for enduring over time, it certainly doesn't endure unaltered over time, or it would be very inconvenient if it did. Space-- maybe, but if that means serious separation, surely emotions alter. I think it's a sound-bite.

Yesterday i came across for the first time some work Ainsworth did with The Mister, Leonard Ainsworth. He was on the faculty at Johns Hopkins. I wonder whether that's how she got a foothold there, because however famed she became, she couldn't have been well known at that time. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently when in London she answered a job advert from Bowlby looking for researchers on child development. As for the sound-bite part, a good sound-bite would be useful in the lead from the point of view of the average intelligent reader who knows nothing about the subject. So come on then - give us a sound-bite. Fainites ^barley 17:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Article plan

Lead should contain a summary of all sections. Tenets is OK. But I think a paragraph that explains in about 3 sentences what attachment theory is would help the reader then understand the tenets. History could be reorganised a little more and perhaps broken into subsections for easier reading. Basic attachment theory needs renaming. Its a paragraph about styles etc.

Then there should be a paragraph called developments - which sets out where its got to, and another paragraph for the areas currently undergoing or awaiting research. Fainites ^barley 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Three sentences done-- but i put them at the beginning, not with the tenets-- what do you think? Also, riff on whether attachment is a tie.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

March 31

Give me 10 minutes, F., I just lost some dandy criticisms. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, done. I wish there were a light that flashed or something, when someone else is working on the same page.

Now we've got more criticism than we have theory. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't realise you were at it. Fainites ^barley 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, and i didn't realize you were.

Is this mo' bettah? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I've also added a devlopments section and a bit about developments as per rutter 1995, though there have been more since. We could also put current hot areas of research in here. Fainites ^barley 08:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I discovered that the Blurton Jones edited book I was using hadn't been checked out since I used it in 1974! I must say it was disturbing to see all of the comments about AT and to realize that Bowlby and all had just merrily proceeded without paying any attention to them. To this day, no one seems to realize that it's questionable to apply Harlow's monkey studies to this. And of course, what with various animal rights concerns, many textbooks don't even mention that a conclusion they're discussing was drawn from animal work.

The connection with evolution is really a Just So story, isn't it? It's interesting to speculate about, but given that AT discusses many modern functions for attachment, I don't see that the evolutionary view provides any additional evidence.

Nevertheless, Attachment theory seems to rule the world. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah but the evolutionists love the fact that its "grounded" in evolution. I rather like the evolutionary perspective myself. Did you see that quote ""Melding ideas from Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, object relations theory, control systems theory, evolutionary biology and the fields of ethology and cognitive psychology, Bowlby (1969/82,1973,1980) developed a grand theory of personality development across the lifespan - attachment theory. One reason why attachment theory is so unique, generative and prominent in contemporary social and behavioural sciences is because of its deep, foundational ties to principles of evolution." Simpson. Attachment Theory in Modern Evolutionary Perspective. Handbook of Attachment."

Evolution is a great "one size fits all" theory so they would appreciate that. Fainites ^barley 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Those monkey studies were pretty horrible. Fainites ^barley 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Horrible, as in mean? There is that, but what i meant was that generalizing from macaques to humans, or even macaques to baboons, is a questionable approach.

Of course thinking about the old environment of evolutionary adaptedness is a lot of fun, but I don't see that it makes any contribution here, except to draw the battle lines in a particular way. Anyone who says it's somewhat useless to consider evolutionary issues about attachment is likely to be nailed as a creationist and have to spend time beating on that dead horse. (Hey, do you think dead horses have been eating straw men?)

However, back at this article: shouldn't history come before tenets?

Another thing: personally, i don't know a thing about attachment in adulthood, romantic or otherwise, nor do i really care. Do you want to do that piece, or is there a chance of getting someone else interested? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

History could come before tenets I think but only if there is a paragraph that explains what attachment theory is. Otherwise, what are you reading the history of? As for adult attachment - its not really my thing either. Someone once put it in and theres a pretty reasonable article on it. I'll have a go from that. Fainites ^barley 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the bits in your criticism section already appears in the 'history' section. I'm tidying up history. I think there ought to be sort of Bowlby history and post Bowlby history and then current areas of development and research. Fainites ^barley 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean - the tenets you set out, are they Bowlbys' original ones, or the current up-dated version if you see what I mean? Fainites ^barley 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Original, meaning '60s and '70s. But they're not off a list that i could provide a page number for. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Theresienstadt etc

I see the psychoanalysis box is back ! Fainites ^barley 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that source say Bowlby paid little attention to the Thereisenstadt children or is that your interpretation? Fainites ^barley 08:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is about the Theresienstadt children, so it doesn't say that. So I guess it's my interpretation. But haven't we had this kind of thing before-- like saying that Bowlby did not mention monotropy in the WHO publication? To say that something is not mentioned must always be a matter of someone's interpretation. i have no published source to cite, but there's also no published source confirming that monotropy isn't mentioned. What does one do about this?Jean Mercer (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you need a secondary source. If you say 'monotropy is not mentioned in MHMC' in the article I suppose that would be OR - but nobody's tried to put that in an article. Its the other way round. Kip put in that monotropy was a feature of maternal deprivaion when it wasn't in MHMC so thats his OR. I don't think you can say Bowlby was influenced by this, that or the other unless there's a secondary source that says he was influenced by this, that or the other. His being influenced by Robertson/Hinde etc etc is well documented. Whats the secondary source for saying he was influenced by Theriesenstadt or that bit from a psychoanalyst about mystical bonds with mothers? Fainites ^barley 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I said he was NOT influenced by the Theresienstadt material, or at least does not mention it-- which he should have because it's a "natural experiment" that tests aspects of attachment theory. The mystical bond part is from a contemporary, just filling in background for the period and also doing a little cage-rattling.Jean Mercer (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah well now, you being a notable author - put it in a monograph - get it in a peer reviewed publication and then we can put it in. Howsabout a paragraph specifically on diffs with psychoanalysts? Fainites ^barley 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute - the Theriesenstadt thing is 1951. Did it come out before or after MHMC? If it was before then it should have formed part of his 'evidence base'. If its after - did they refer to MHMC? suppose if it came out at the same time - they missed each other - there being no internet. Fainites ^barley 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly came out before the revised Schocken version, but even that has no references later than 1950. Neither do any of the "reassessment" papers in the Schocken edition refer to the AF paper.. However, the Bulldogs Bank children went to Windermere along with other rescued children in 1945-- after two months went to Bulldogs Bank-- the 1951 paper only covers about a year of their lives there. Surely someone had heard of this work? I've put out a query on a history of science listserve asking if anyone knows of later papers about those children. I suppose if they all cracked up and each one murdered all the others, their case wouldn't be taken as an example.

I see that AF had a "response to Dr. Bowlby" in 1960. Let me see what she had to say.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The only mention in Holmes of anna freuds work as an influence in maternal deprivation is her Hampstead residential nursery work. Holmes goes through the various papers and influences for MD - but doesn't mention things he could have been but wasn't influenced by if you see what I mean. It doesn't arise in his chapter on influences for the development of attachment theory either - though there's alot of stuff on the influence of/break with psychoanalysis. Fainites ^barley 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there might be serious paper in this issue.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You've said he 'apparently paid little attention to' the Thereisenstadt stuff - but is there any evidence he was aware of its existance? Or could he not help but be aware of it? Surely someone would have noticed it and thrust it under his nose or didn't it work like that in 1951? Fainites ^barley 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Anna Freud referred to it herself in a comment in response to JB's paper on grief and mourning in 1960. This comment appeared immediately following Bowlby's paper in Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Vol. 15. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

He must have read it then at that point, even if he didn't when it was first published. This is all getting a bit to esoteric for Wiki I think - but I look forward to your paper "Bowlby - and the Mystery of the Theriesenstadt Attachments" (dang, dang daaanggg) Fainites ^barley 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang on! There's a mention of a paper on concentration camp children by Anna freud in the 1958 paper. Fainites ^barley 10:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

self-published tag

I have added the above tag to the page on 'Attachment Theory'. This is because monotropy is described as a 'tenet' of the attachment theory and Jean Mercer is cited.

Monotropy is a feature of 'Maternal deprivation' NOT 'attachment theory'.

Many thanksKingsleyMiller (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journals and books by respectable publishers like Guilford Press or Praegers are not 'self published'. Please read policies on sources. I have removed your tag.
You have as yet to provide a notable source to support your claim that 'monotropy' is a feature of maternal deprivation and not Bowlby's attachment theory. I'm not saying there aren't any - but in all the months you've been making this claim you haven't produced one for discussion on these talkpages. (This does not include blogs on the web). There's plenty of notable sources on attachment theory. Surely if what you say is correct you can find one? I have produced sources in which Bowlby himself describes it in the first volume of "Attachment and Loss" (1969) and states he first used this term in his 1958 paper which is seen by a number of sources (already provided) as the first of 3 papers setting out the basic elements of attachment theory.
I assume you have 'maternal deprivation reassessed' by Rutter. If you look in the 1972 edition on page 17 in the chapter called 'attachment' you will see there that Rutter cites Bowlby as arguing for monotropy in 1969. 1969 is the year of publication of the first volume of the trilogy, "attachment and loss".
Even if one argued that monotropy was a feature of both theories, even though he didn't use the actual word until 1958, or fully set it out until 1969, it still must be a feature of attachment theory if its in the 1969 book which is attachment theory.
I don't understand why this is such a big issue. Maternal deprivation was a hypothesis with very little theory. Attachment theory was Bowlby's attempt to formulate a theory to explain early relationships. Why is it so important to try and claim monotropy is a feature of maternal deprivation, but not attachment theory? is it because its part of your endeavour to show Bowlby is not the originator of attachment theory? Fainites ^barley 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I assumed the tag was for the unpublished student papers cited as criticism. Those probably should go, and I'm replacing them with other material bit by bit.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Kip thought that because you'd cited your own book under "tenets" that was "self-publishing". Its seems to be linked to his belief that monotropy was not part of attachment theory. (I agree that unpublished student papers should go). Fainites ^barley 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I've split it up to make it less daunting.

I don't understand to what or whom this refers "Bowlby's decisions left him open to criticism from well-established thinkers working on problems similar to those he addressed. " FB

Klein and A.Freud were still working on similar issues and didn't just let him go on without comment.JM

Shouldn't we say what those criticisms are though - from psychoanalysts i mean?FB

The bit from Hinde doesn't seem like a criticism - more like a worry that people would misunderstand what terms meant and get the wrong end of the stick.FB

Wouldn't that be a criticism of the way the terms were presented? But it's true that it was all pretty much okay with Hinde.JM

Also the bit about attachment behaviours out of doors. is any of that criticism apart from the first line?FB

Yes, those are all other things that could be measured, that Bowlby had paid no attention to. But the implication was that he was trying to build the theory on insufficient observational data.Jean Mercer (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Were they criticising him or is it just an implication?FB

Fainites ^barley 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I added specific criticism from other authors writing in the same volume as the Anderson paper.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

About the psychoanalysts-- there are specifics earlier in the para-- but re-arrange if you like. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You were asking about more recent criticisms-- many of those focus on omissions like failures to consider temperament as a determinant of attachment behavior. I'll have to get some of those together.Jean Mercer (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think once you've finished putting in every criticism you can find it will need a little refining and sorting as its getting a little dense and detailed. Or - better idea - how about a summary of each form of criticism, and a link to a separate article called 'Criticisms of attachment theory'? Fainites ^barley 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

self-published tag2

I see you have REMOVED the referece citing Jean Mercer. This is not sufficient. You need to cite the source for your table called the 'Tenets of the Attachment Theory' Please note I will need to see the SOURCE.

I have replaced the tag with one requiring further verification.

Please read my page on 'WIKIPEDIA' called monotropy before criticising it and removing it from the Rutter page.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. I moved it to the end of the passage instead of the beginning. Whats more, I did it on the 18th April whereas you placed your inappropriate tag on the 23rd April. For the nth time, please check your facts before flinging accusations around. Please make an effort to get to grips with the fact that other editors may disagree with you and may have good reason for doing so. For example, have you read Bowlby on monotropy? What do you say about the fact that he describes it in his 1969 trilogy on attachment theory and says he first used the term in his 1958 paper? What do you say about the proposal to see if you can find a source to say monotropy as set out in attachment theory is essentially the same concept as thatin maternal deprivation? Fainites ^barley 08:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the Rutter page - your edit on monotropy was not sourced. And as for removing things from pages - I found a comprehensive secondary source - summarising Rutters contribution on the issue of maternal deprivation - which you simply removed within hours - citation and all. Fainites ^barley 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

self-published tag3

This tag is incorrectly placed. It needs to be at the top to show where you have got your TABLE from. You have made it appear as though it refers to POINT 7 on the table.

PLEASE MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT JEAN MERCER IS THE AUTHOR OF THE COMPLETE TABLE

You still need for further citations for verification.

Please see the TALK PAGE on Monotropy.KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggsting the ref should go after every sentence? or that the ref is better placed where it was at the top of the table? Fainites ^barley 10:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What table? A list isn't a table, any more than quoting myself makes me self-published. KM, you need to be more specific about the referencing you think is needed. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The original accusation was that the reference had been removed which was not the case. Even if kingsley thinks it should go at the top rather than the bottom of the passage I can't see there's any need for all this shouting and accusatory behaviour about it (which appears on several other pages, including an admins page, too.) Fainites ^barley 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

List or Table / Administrator please note

Is Jean Mercer the author of the list or John Bowlby?

If so please make this clear in the original document and cite the appropriate sources ie Where can I see the list?

(Who is specifically saying the list comprises of the 'tenets' of attachment theory?)

This will be important because Fanities have suggested 'dispute resolution'.

08:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my request to the Mediation Cabal KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am, as the reference shows. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What administrator?
Why is Jean Mercer not listed as an involved party in either of your mediation requests?
I suggested dispute resolution on the Michael Rutter page - though it is probably essentially the same dispute - assuming you are still claiming Bowlby is not the originator of attachment theory and that monotropy was a feature of maternal deprivation not attachment theory.
One thing I was considering doing, having moved the developments section up to just after histroy - was the possibility of placing it immediately after 'tenets'. I think it is appropriate to set out the original tenets of the theory and then set out what developments/criticisms etc there have been. There may be some notable authors who disagree that monotropy is abandoned anyway. Plus there have probably been significant developments since Rutters paper.
We can be definitive about what the original attachment theory was.
We can probably be pretty clear about major and well established developments.
it is probably not possible to be definitive about evrything attachment theory "is" today as there is constant research and development. Fainites ^barley 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This last piece: that's why I defined it at the beginning as Bowlby's theory. However, most of the research has to do with finding what outcomes are predicted by attachment staus, or about various measures that can be used. Much of Bowlby's theory is untestable except by more of the data it was based on, just as psychoanalysis is.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What would you say are the significant developments after Rutters 1995 paper? Fainites ^barley 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just say that there's been new stress on secure base behavior and on developing new measures, especially for older children and adults. Also, the attachment concept has been brought into therapeutic efforts more than it used to be, and there's been further research with large groups, like the Romanian orphan studies. But none of these really speak to the theory itself. Even where work like Rutter's indicates that the attachment history is only one factor determining outcome, that's not necessarily in contradiction to Bowlby, because i don't think he said attachment was the single important factor-- indeed, he discussed cognition quite a bit, although not in the way we could do it now. Everything in developmental psychology has felt some impact from dynamic systems theory (although more as an ideal than a reality), so the study of attachment has too, but as far as i know this hasn't occurred in a way that causes the theory to be reformulated. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we sum this up from sources? is there a more recent 'retrospect and prospect' type paper? Fainites ^barley 09:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer. I wish to dispute your list. Please log onto the top of the page where it says request

for example; Where can I see a copy of the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 11:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime I have also added a self publishing tag because you seem to be publishing your own ideas without appropriate verification.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You do know that that's not what self-publishing means? (I think you do, because Fainites told you.)

KM, if you can give me some Wiki rule that I can't cite my own work, published by a reputable publisher, I will cite each of those points separately to an earlier source. And I will do that even if you say that you're concerned that I may have misinterpreted the items. If I have time from other work, I may do it anyway. But if I do that, I expect you to pipe down about this, afterward.

Before i do it, though, suppose you tell me what body of work you define as "Bowlby's attachment theory" and what you would call "modern, or not-Bowlby's, attachment theory." I don't care to have a further squabble about whether choices of sources are really really about attachment theory or not.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer,

I made a comment on the discussion page because I did not see this comment here.

Sorry for any inconvenience.KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I see I've done this wrong, but it will have to wait for correction. In any case, I think this one source is the answer to KM's major queries. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Which volume does 'internal working model' appear in? Fainites ^barley 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fonagy dates it to 1973, Vol 2, Separation: Anxiety and Anger.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. We can put that in then. Fainites ^barley 11:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Did. Also another tenet. Though I liked having ten tenets.

Anyone for tenets? Jean Mercer (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(I know what you mean. i liked it when RAD had exactly 100 citations and was disappointed when several had to go. Pathetic isn't it. Fainites ^barley 15:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

I was wondering what the best source was to cite for the first four tenets. Volume 1 for the first I think. Fainites ^barley 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of taking out the brain functions one, or folding it into the evolution one, removing some of the statements about early development. I haven't had a chance to go through all his material, but I'm not positive Bowlby spent much time talking about brain functions. I may have gotten carried away by more modern work when I said that.

Then the first three would be sourced to Vol. I, and we'd be back to Ten Tenets, all sung by Tenors, with Tenure.Jean Mercer (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ten Green Tenets...Fainites ^barley 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your criticisms section JM

I've divided the crits up a bit to make them more digestible. Could you explain differently the connection between Sroufes 1977 criticism and how this led on to "discussion of secure base behaviour" ? Are you effectively saying attention to the secure base aspect gave it a new lease of life? I'm still amazed by how old nearly all of the criticisms are.Fainites ^barley 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I left a word out originally-- I've inserted it, and maybe this shows the connection. The issue is that attachment behaviors of all kinds can serve to do the same job, helping the child to cope with environmental stressors, and that secure base behavior can be seen this way, just as well as proximity-seeking can. The organizational approach also explains why different attachment-related behaviors occur at different ages-- the child has different abilities, as well as possibly different experiences, at different ages.

I don't say it got a new lease on life. I don't think the study of secure base behavior had anything like the effect it was expected to.

True, explicit criticisms are old, but I'm working on showing the more recent implicit criticisms-- not for Wiki purposes, because that would be one of those "saying it isn't there" issues. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuck, what a mess that was. Where was my head, i wonder-- anyway, i hope I've hammered it into some semblance of meaning. How many other such pieces, I dread to ask! Jean Mercer (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Source

That bit you put in about being influenced by the psychoanalytic writer from the 1950's, do we have a source for saying he was influenced by this writer then I can stick it in? I couldn't find mention of it in MHMC, or Attachment and loss or Secure base.Fainites ^barley 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll take it out then. If a source appears we can stick it back. Fainites ^barley 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean, now we've found that bit about concentration camp children forming relationships with each other in the 1958 paper, should that bit about saying he ignored it go? Fainites ^barley 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not sure he meant the Bulldogs Bank children. There were many other children rescued. However, it's true that we can't show that he ignored it-- he might not have included it in his writing, but still not have ignored it. Jean Mercer (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He does make the point about their relationships with each other. Maybe we'll come across another source. Fainites ^barley 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

History

This section was bit rambling and the writer is long gone. I've tried to amalgamte and clarify bits and then divide it up into sections to make it more reader friendly. What do you think?Fainites ^barley 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a great improvement.

Don't you wonder how Harlow could argue that he had found the nature of love, or Bowlby could claim that this [highly sentimental] paper about monkeys could generalize to humans? But I don't remember ever reading any comment that such behavior was best regarded as species-specific until otherwise was shown, even though this has been said about many other attempts to generalize across species.

How about the last para of the Harlow paper! That should make our pal most happy. I never noticed it before.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - a sort of back to front way of putting it! Though as you say - rather extreme conclusions about the whole topic given the species issue. Mind you, 'Cautious thoughts on some aspects of mammalian affection' doesn't grab the eye does it. Fainites ^barley 06:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually that Harlow bit that says 'two papers' and cites Harlow as one - that was put in ages ago. I must check out the citations as its not something I've seen elsewhere. I mean normally Harlow is cited as one amongst several significant influences. It says its 'in press' so surely it must have been published by now.Fainites ^barley 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The only link I can find on google is one to a ref list from leiden university. Hmmm. Can you find it anywhere? Fainites ^barley 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is such a journal, and i was able to find its tables of contents, but no such article popped up. Some journals do take a long time in production, so it may be legit. I'll see if i can find the other one that's in Attachment & Human Development.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The in press article (Van der Horst, LeRoy & Van der Veer) will appear in the December 2008 issue of IPBS. Indeed, "some journals do take a long time in production"! The paper in AHD was published in December 2007. Both papers are part of a PhD research at Leiden University. Frakn (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish JosephSchwartz was still around as he could add a piece on the current semi-rapprochement between psychoanalysis and attachment theory. I wasn't clear from his stuff whether he and his colleagues were a bit out on a limb or shoving their way into the mainstream. Fainites ^barley 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get all Wikicentric, but is it considered legit to cite an in-press paper? And where does all this fit on the secondary sources issue that I've been hit with? Jean Mercer (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Frakn. I suppose the problem with an in-press paper is if its not published, no-one can check it out so its not verifiable. We had all this over Craven and Lee paper Jean remember? The proper course I suppose if its contentious, is to remove it until the paper is published and then stick it back in. But is it contentious? I don't know whether the paper counts as a primary or secondary source. I don't know what its all about! Presumably secondary as its neither by Harlow or Bowlby but about their contributions. Anyway - there's plenty of detailed sources on how the theory came about to keep us going until the papers published.Fainites ^barley 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I don't like that citation for Harris. The link leads to a student paper about Harris's views. Surely if Harris is a significant critic the citation should be to Harris, or at least a notable secondary source. Fainites ^barley 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I linked "drive-theory" to Drive theory (psychoanalysis) and found this amazing little article. Well worth a read. Fainites ^barley 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why I assumed JS was talking about drives as in Clark Hull, not drives as in Freud. But I guess psychoanalysts are still using this term, and using it to translate Trieb, which used to be translated as instinct (a long time ago). It's hard to tell whether they're being metaphorical.

As for Harris, I certainly wouldn't consider Harris a significant or original critic, but be that as it may the citation should be of her own publication. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Its "The Nurture Assumption" that's given a ref. I wouldn't assume though that what the paper says Harris says is necessarily what Harris does say. It sometimes seems that in the academic world, the setting up of Aunt Sally's is the norm rather than the exception, so only original texts are safe.Fainites ^barley 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If the concern is the general one about infant determinism, I'd suggest citing Jerome Kagan's book, "Three Seductive Ideas".Jean Mercer (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have that. What does he say? Fainites ^barley 20:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He just points out that the assumption that events in early life are essential causes of outcomes is untested and to some extent untestable. It's one of those things that "everybody knows". Jean Mercer (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Nurture Assumption argues against internal working models deriving from early attachment realtionships. ie your relationshp with your primary caregiver as shown in the SSP does not correlate to your relationships with everybody else. The mind holds many internal working models. Not sure what the source for this is yet. I'll look into it. Fainites ^barley 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Schaffer (Child Psychology 2004) mentions the Harris/Pinker "notion" that socialization takes place primarily in the peer group and that the influence of parents has been grossly exaggerated. He takes the view that this is an overstatemnent and that its more likely that parents and peers fulfil different functions and that each has a distinctive role to play in meeting certain needs in childrens lives. Fainites ^barley 20:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, Bowlby, and others, consider the sociable or 'affiliative' behavioural system to be distinct from the attachment behavioural system.Fainites ^barley 20:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tenets

I've started adding more basic explanatory information on how attachment actually works. I also added a brief explanation of what it means. Fainites ^barley 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was also wondering whether the history section ought to go further down the order - after all the descriptions of attachment. Fainites ^barley 21:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It might go right before critiscism and controversy. Jean Mercer (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Styles and adult attachment ought to go under 'develoment'? Fainites ^barley 14:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ties that bind

I don't think the tie metaphor is helpful at all. People interpret it to mean whatever they already thought attachment meant. I don't know what it means, myself. If it isn't mutual, surely the term "tie", with its implications of being fastened equally on both sides, is deceptive. And Bowlby (and others) definitely dropped th ball on describing the mother's motivation for caregiving. Why not describe attachment from the child's side only? Also, I'm not sure it's useful to assume that the secure base motivation gives rise to parallel behavior at later ages. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Its been in the article for ages as far as I can tell. I think its one of those quotes that sticks in peoples minds because of the "...endures through space and time" bit which is rather poetic - and does get across its enduring nature. I added the Prior and Glaser description because it got across the different processes better I thought. As for motivations - its a whole huge separate topic I would have thought - apart from "caregiver responses". I suppose Bowlby lived in a world that never questioned it until he was approaching retirement. (Thinks - is this a topic we could tackle if the attachment pages are ever done or is that too far in the distant future to contemplate). Fainites ^barley 13:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, the field is only starting to approach this (caregiving motivation) issue. They got badly burned over the "maternal-infant bonding" business and never really had the nerve to start again. Also, this is an area that would involve intensive observational and interviewing work-- no questionnaires-- and there are few people who want to do that. In my opinion, there's only the weakest observational material on breastfeeding, but when I pointed this out in an article I submitted somewhere several years ago, the editor trounced me no end, said I was arrogant (moi?) and that there was, too, such material. But there isn't.

A good understanding of the parent side could show how experience takes the place posited for an innate mechanism in the baby-- Gewirtz tried to do something like this, and it was incredibly time-consuming and nobody liked it. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see it would be difficult, time-consuming and controversial. What a good job we don't have to do it right now and what a good job it isn't strictly relevent to the attachment article.Fainites ^barley 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Do you remeber putting this bit in Jean, right at the beginning?

An attachment theory is a coherent group of ideas that attempt to explain attachment,the almost universal human tendency to prefer certain familiar companions over other people, especially in circumstances where the person choosing companions is ill, injured, or distressed in some other way. The most important current attachment theory derives from the work of John Bowlby and focuses on social experiences in early childhood as the source of attachment in childhood and in later life. The term "attachment theory" is now almost invariably used to refer to the theory developed by Bowlby, and this article will follow that usage.

somebody nowiki'd it because it wasn't sourced. Do you have a source and then it can go back. Fainites ^barley 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed this. Prior and Glaser say all this, but not in exactly those words or all on the same page. Is that okay?

I say it in my "Understanding Attachment" too, but of course when i say it, it's only my own opinion, I'm told. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your belief I think it was said! Thanks for the cite. I'll stick it in. Fainites ^barley 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bother. My copy of P&G has gone awol. Fainites ^barley 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Found it! Fainites ^barley 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the lead: I query whether it is still correct to speak of the theory as ethological and evolutionary as of today. I think we're running into the "when" problem-- whereas Bowlby buttressed his approach with evo/etho, these points are rarely mentioned by users of attachment theory today. This is why I was trying to establish what the theory is actually like right now. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd need a source on that though Jean. Currently there are sources making the point very strongly that its evolutionary/ethological. To some commentators it seems central! Zeanah for one. Cassidy, Schaffer, Prior and Glaser. Then look at this one from the Handbook of Attachment;

"Melding ideas from Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, object relations theory, control systems theory, evolutionary biology and the fields of ethology and cognitive psychology, Bowlby (1969/82,1973,1980) developed a grand theory of personality development across the lifespan - attachment theory. One reason why attachment theory is so unique, generative and prominent in contemporary social and behavioural sciences is because of its deep, foundational ties to principles of evolution." Simpson. Attachment Theory in Modern Evolutionary Perspective. Handbook of Attachment.

Maybe evolution isn't mentioned so much as its precepts are taken for granted. I still think the easiest thing to do is set out basic attachment theory qua Bowlby with sections on whats moved on/developed etc. Fainites ^barley 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that the difference is between "attachment" and "attachment theory". Attachment theory generally means Bowlby. If you wrote about "attachment" you would expect a substantial chunk of it to be about attachment theory - but not necessarily all of it? Just a thought. Fainites ^barley 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just been re-reading Rutter 72 again and was struck again by how the maternal deprivation hypothesis was extremely broad (in an inchoate sort of way) and Rutter breaks the notion down into component parts of which "attachment" is only one. I'm not sure the maternal deprivation article covers this comprehensively enough at the moment. Fainites ^barley 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even want to say that maternal deprivation was a hypothesis-- more like a guess-- because the big problem was that practically speaking it could only be tested against the same kind of data it was derived from. That i suppose was why Bowlby was so thrilled with Harlow's work, which is in fact not clearly relevant to human development.

As for the etho/evo, as usual I have no source to present. But just read a dozen recent papers dealing with attachment, and see how many of them so much as mention ethology or evolution. With respect to evolution, I agree, they just assume it. I certainly don't mean to say that they are opposed to evolutionary thought-- but the value of Just-so stories is so limited that people don't give a lot of thought to a background that doesn't generate new ways of thinking. As for ethology, i love it myself, but as a school of thought it has become much weakened, especially as people have become afraid to mention animals (either because of creationists or of animal rights supporters-- take your pick which to be afraid of). In any case, a major point of ethology is that you watch and watch and let the animals or children tell you about themselves. Most modern attachment research chooses a small number of events out of a large possible repertoire and ignores all the others-- that's not ethology, although it can be psychobiology, which is fine but not the same. To say that aspects of attachment are innate is not the same as saying they stem from ethological principles.

But, as you will point out with your pointer, that's all OR.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere the other day that ethology itself died as a field in the 70's but that seems rather odd. Anyway - I don't think Bowlby or the others just thought that you could translate direct from animal behaviour to humans - but it must be of interest to see how things work when there's no language as such. you can tella 3 year old that Mummy or Daddy will be back soon or Mummy has to go away for a bit but still loves you and will come home as soon as she can, or whatever - but not really an 18 month old, or a monkey.Fainites ^barley 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Although we've tidied it up and rationalised it quite a bit - I feel there's still something inherently wrong with the layout and organisation of information but I can't put my finger on it.Fainites ^barley 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat interested in this topic, and very interested to see a team of editors working to improve an article. I'm no expert on either.

Speaking only for myself, I suspect Barley is correct. To me, there seems to be a lot of reliable information, and each section co-ordinates OK, but as a reader I'd really appreciate it if the structure made "skim reading" easier. History and Developments are similar ideas, I presume one looks back and the other covers more recent trends. But whatever they mean, I think headings and packaging could probably be helped if they were more transparent.

Perhaps the lead could be more of a summary (precis, synopsis, abstract) of the article, clearly indicating the following headings and their logical connection. Perhaps History should be first, perhaps a statement of the Theory in its current form should be first or second. Developments could follow Theory. Perhaps experimental evidence should precede theoretical explanations of the evidence. But the opposite would be fine too, so long as they are clearly marked. Some readers prefer Theory up front, others prefer hearing a "story" (the History) first. A section on Criticisms is good for pulling out all the weasling or long-windedness of integrating criticism side-by-side with Theory (or even History).

I guess the thing is to classify the types of information being presented and the function of those types of information. Label them clearly and away you go. People might quibble a bit about priorities in ordering, but should all agree that the article "feels" professional and satisfying.

I tend to like to hear the names of uncontroversial and authoritative sources right up front in the lead of an article, and then discover through the course of the whole article why the authorities say what they say. If editors drop "POV" tags on articles because of this, I remove such tags and ask for specifics on the talk page if the tag is to remain. The absence of a Criticisms section is fair enough grounds for a POV tag, though is pretty high-handed.

Finally, I really, really, really care about Bibliographies. I don't care if articles haven't consulted more than a couple of sources to write up details, but I do care if they haven't done a subject source at Google Scholar and gathered the oldest and best recent academic sources.

A bit of work on structure and bibliography, add a few pictures and this would be a Good Article. Consider symptoms, diagnosis and treatment type issues for Attachment Disorder; build a sophisticated Criticisms section, based on the bibliography; integrate wider discussion from sociology and the press and this could be a featurable article.

Please feel free to ignore all the advice in this free peer review. You get what you pay for, so they say. Advice offered when uncalled for cannot expect to be appreciated. I won't be offended. However, I love the work you guys have done, and offer my ramblings by way of encouragement. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for taking an interest Alistair! Lots to think about. I've been trying to give structure some thought but its a fairly complex, if cohesive, theory. There have been developments but it is difficult to say well "attachment theory is now this or this " as the theory has not been reworked as such. Also - there's loads of research still ongoing. Nearly everything you read ends by saying "we need more research on this!". In scientific terms I suppose its still quite a recent theory if you think of it as being complete as at 1982. Longitudinal studies can take forever.

On Attachment disorder - thats up to GA already and the Reactive attachment disorder up to FA so I'm hoping links will be enough without too much detail as actual disorders of attachment as opposed to less desirable attachment styles are quite rare. The structure has been around for a while. I know what you mean about history. Some say without a quick canter through the history its difficult to make sense of the theory - but then others say you should say what the theory is and the history is just of minor interest.

The tags by the way relate to ongoing mediation with an editor who has major issues about Bowlby's contribution so it didn't seem polite to remove them until the mediation has been resolved.

What do you mean by "bibliography" in this context? Jean Mercer and I have only really started to get stuck in comparatively recently, having been previously engaged on getting RAD up to FA and the Child development article reasonably informative. Your beady eye is much appreciated as editors generally have a beam rather than a mote in their own about the articles they're working on. Fainites ^barley 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alastair (also F., of course)-- yes, the organizational problem is how to deal with Attachment theory THEN as opposed to Attachment theory NOW. History and this theory itself seem inseparable until we manage that. But even if we chose a cut-off like Rutter 1995, I find no clear statement about the present status of the theory on any aspect of Google, or on PsycINFO, or on Academic Premier Search, or just in searching through relevant journals. I'd be happy to take bits from articles to compile the present theory, but it's you-know-what to do that. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great answers to my questions, both of you. (Artificially) identifying some "stable version" of the theory sounds like a possibility. Even the original theory (Bowlby) could be advanced as this version, and the rest as Developments. Ainsworth might be a better selection. That would isolate periods of both History and Development, it would also introduce some important experimental data.

I think I'm hearing both of you telling me that this topic is an academic version of a Current Event. It has plenty of intrinsic messiness. POVs are multiply addressing a substantial number of plausible ways of modifying current proposals. I would suggest this introduces an aspect that can be approached systematically by segregating Data from Explanation. Timing of theories and evidence still needs explanation. Some theoretical work depends on preceding data, the data is sufficiently ambiguous to form the basis of alternative explanations. Calls for more research, if they specify the kind of research could be a helpful source to include in a subsection of a Data/Research/Evidence section.

Regarding Bibliography, it sounds like the serious writing on the subject is recent, diverse, uncertain and inaccessible. Yes, that poses major challenges. I'll check out the GA and FA articles on the topic, to see how they deal with things.

Finally, I think you are very noble accepting the tagging. If you look closely at the policy, you will see tagging is a last resort to mark that discussion has failed to reach consensus. It explicitly describes that tags need justification before they can be placed. "See talk page" on many tags reflects not that you can simply tag and note on talk page, but rather than there should be a clearly unresolved issue already at the talk page. Although I tend to accept misuse of tags on pages where I work, I'm pretty ruthless in removing them in other places. At the very least tags need the backing of sources, like anything else, maybe even more so, since they are so intrusive.

At this article, some people will argue the very concept is POV, there are articles like that, but not this one.

Anyway, I'll keep the page on my watchlist, and chip in from a point of ignorant neutrality from time to time, if it appears I can help. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be a great help. Some sources describe Attachment theory as the joint work of Bowlby and Ainsworth but most credit Bowlby with formulating the actual theory but Ainsworth providing alot of the data and thinking that made it workable and practical. Her classification of styles and Strange Situation Procedure, whilst not strictly part of attachment theory, meant researchers had practical tools to test it with and conduct research on - rather to Ainsworths annoyance as she thought children should also be extensively observed in their natural setting (as she had done). However - scientists like to be able to measure things and control variables and do maths with the results and what have you so one can see the attraction of the SSP. I did start adding info to the Attachment measures page on the other measures but its very much work in progress.

There's a very interesting book called Attachment from Infancy to Childhood:The major Longitudinal Studies published in 2005 where they got those who undertook the studies to reflect on the process, observations, results and 'learnings' of the studies. It ends with a chapter from Dozier et al as to current studies in progress and a statement on the importance of contributions from all fields - like Bowlby did. Again - it talks of 'developing the foundation' rather than a current formulation of the theory.Fainites ^barley 10:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's possible that Ainsworth's teacher William Blatz should receive more credit for theory-building than she (MDSA) should. The security typology seems to have been his. I don't mean to downplay Ainsworth's contribution, especially its value at a time when the attachment concept was relatively recently introduced, but the theory doesn't require that typology.

One thing that seems to be missing, from the theory and from our article, is a good, meaningful definition of attachment. "An emotional tie" means nothing-- actually less than nothing, because the metaphor implies things that are not true about the symmetry of the attachment relationship. As a clinician friend said when I asked him to define attachment, "I don't know how to say it, but I know it when I see it!" I am hoping we can find a way to do better than that.

In addition, I think we're beginning to see researchers who are working with normal relationships just quietly drop the attachment terminology and move to ideas with less baggage, like muttually responsive orientation. Attachment is beginning to be a term related to psychopathology more than to normal development.

Some of Bowlby's ideas, like goal-corrected partnership, seem to me to be packed with research implications and full of promise for the description of normal development, but they are rarely discussed. Security gets all the attention.

Maybe we need three sections: pre-Bowlby (mainly Freud, Rank, Suttie, even Blatz); Bowlby et al.; post-Bowlby developments. I think KM is right for the wrong reasons that the emphasis is too much on Bowlby, as if no one before him or since had discussed attachment phenomena. Post-Bowlby would include adult attachment and measures other than SS. Maybe have the cut-off with Ainsworth et al's 1978 book? Jean Mercer (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If we were to follow the organization i mentioned in that last para, I think we should return to a lead that says what an attachment theory is. Yes, I'll look for a source for that!

Curious how people mention that teamwork is unusual. I'd like to know how common it is-- Jean Mercer (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah! A philosopher! I can't let that slip by. Teamwork has been human nature for as long as we have had writing. Writing is teamwork, it speaks from teamwork to teamwork. Communication is communion. Homo sapiens doesn't merely think, he shares. The only people who say teamwork is rare are those who make a business of aggressive take-over bids. "You don't know what teamwork is until you do it our way," they say. LOL, teamwork has always belonged to the people. "Love your neighbour" is not a command, it's a reminder. Peace comrade. :)

PS From what you say above, I do hope you publish in this area, carpe diem. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK team. A lead that briefly says - what an attachment theory is, what the previous theories were (though they weren't actually called attachment theoy as such), what Bowlby's is (and probably including the fact the current usage of the term usually means Bowlby - rightly or wrongly), what developments there have been, what current areas of research interest there are, what clinical uses there are, what 'disorders' there are. Then the article organised on those lines which would also include where it came from - ie the history. We are social animals. Fainites ^barley 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way - I tried a summary of Prior and Glaser as to what "attachment" in attachment theory means here in the first paragraph.[3]. What do you think? Fainites ^barley 16:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I wrote all this without remembering that you had just said it was out of P & G.I may as well just leave it because you'll be able to see it anyway!

Generally a good start, but the word "instinctively" opens an awful can of worms. What are you trying to express when you say that? Also, I'd like to escape the "tie" metaphor, although I see you've tried to deal with the asymmetry of the early situation. How about a social preference that helps organize emotion and behavior? That seems to be the only definition that can stretch to cover all the ways attachments work throughout life. No, i don't have a secondary source! ... oh, and i see, you're getting this out of Prior and Glaser, even the "instinctively" part. If I may offer, how about this for a beginning: "Attachment is the development of the infant's preference for a few familiar people" (Mercer, J. [1998] Infant development: A multidisciplinary introduction. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. P. 344). If you started with that, you could then go on to talk about this event as the beginning of a variety of social and emotional "ties" and related behaviors that change in nature throughout development-- you could use the Prior and Glaser material for that. But really, skip the "instinctively", it complicates life too much.

Alistair, I'm not so cynical as to think there's no teamwork anywhere-- it was Wiki i wondered about. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well why doesn't it complicate things for Prior and Glaser then? I took it just to mean biologically based. They go on to say it serves the biological function etc etc. Their next section is called "an evolutionary perspective". They're not the only ones who use the word "instinct". What would be a better word? Let me see....Fainites ^barley 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Putnam says "...is mediated by species-characteristic behaviour patterns that have a biological basis akin to that of mating behaviour or other instinctual responses (Bowlby, 1958)". Sroufe et al say "biologically predisposed". The Handbook of Attachment has no mention of 'instinct' in the index and I'm not reading 925 pages to find it! Fainites ^barley 20:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the use of the word in H of A relates to punch ups with psychoanalysts - but Bowlby used the word himself and there are some quotes. If you look at the Instinct page on Wiki its clear that the meaning of the word is a hot potato - with some not seeing midification by experience as a problem and others taking the view that no human behaviour can be instinctual! I assume Bowlby uses it the former way. Fainites ^barley 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(On another note - There's an interesting bit by Marvin about the development of attachment theory - that Bowlby and colleagues made a deliberate shift to looking at how things went right instead of how things went wrong - as only by working out the precise mechanism of how it should work could you start to understand its malfunctioning. Seems obvious when you read it - but actually its a good point about the whys and wherefores of the development of the theory.)Fainites ^barley 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha! It looks as if Bowlby may agree with you Jean! "The descriptive term 'instinctive behaviour' remains useful, however, to refer ina rough and ready way to behaviour that in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness has consequences that are vital to the survival of the speciesand that is controlled by systems which in that environment arre usually fairly stable. At the same time it must be recognised that even when 'instnctive' is is used purely descriptively it is apt to bring with it two related dangers. The first is the risk that that it may be supposed that every kind of instinctive behaviour is controlled by behavioural systems of a single type; the second is is a risk of creating a false dichotemy between instinctive behaviour and every other type of behaviour. The truth is that behaviour that is traditionally described as instinctive is controlled by systems of many different types and that these systems lie on a number of continua ranging from the most stable systems to the most labile and from those that are the most necessary for species survival to those that make only a marginal contribution to it. There can, therefore be no cut off point between what is called instinctive behaviour and what is not." He then goes on to say - "don't use it on Wikipedia cos its a can of worms". Fainites ^barley 21:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no-- now i will be in trouble with KM, for being in agreement with Bowlby.

It does complicate things for P & G to say "instinctively", but their book has purposes other than getting into that brouhaha, and most of their readers will either just accept it the way you did, as just plain biological, or roll their eyes and go on. Wiki readers may interpret it quite differently.

But the real thing is: if all human beings (or field mice) have a particular behavior, it's really not possible to know whether there's an innate mechanism, or whether in order to survive, the individual had to have certain minimum experiences from which he or she learned the behavior. Many behaviors that one would assume to be innate have at least some learning component-- e.g., rats licking the membranes off newborn pups-- if you put a collar on the pregnant mother so she can't lick her genitals (and get a taste of the amniotic fluid at the end), she won't clean the pups and they'll die. (Good news for pest control firms, hmm?)

But this kind of thing is why I hold that Bowlby was not all that ethological. Ethologists did stress the idea that at least some behaviors are entirely innate, to the point that if they aren't triggered by an environmental event, they will unroll on their own in a "vacuum reaction". Jean Mercer (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I won't ask for a page reference for Bowlby re instinct going on to say, "don't use it on Wikipedia cos its a can of worms." ;)

I must say, though, that's brilliant editing to think through soberly how to use sources appropriately. One option is to actually be explicit and quote the pros and cons of instinctive. I think many readers would appreciate it, and follow the issues. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I quite like the hardwire/software analogy - with the hardwire being the biological readiness for certain behaviours and the software being the experience, but analogoies can just create a whole different set of assumptions.Fainites ^barley 07:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that humans have some reflexes, hard-wired, like heart-beat, or knee-jerk that interact with the brain (if at all) in only the most rudimentary manner. Some very simple life-forms can only be said to "behave" according to an anthromorphic metaphor. Sun-tracking flower heads can be observed, but this "behaviour" is merely a biological construct resulting from evolutionary adaptedness. Human behaviour, on the other hand, appears to involve conscious or unconscious selection of responses to more transitory phenomena. There are a lot of clouds about, I'll take an umbrella. Or unconsiously, on perceiving someone who does not meet our taste, we may talk to another, oblivious to the neurons prompting this response, and far, far, far, from understanding any evolutionary advantage there may (or may not) be in this behaviour. But behaviour it is, because it involves the psyche. But where, oh where, is the boundary between psychic reflex and subconscious selection? It must exist, but can it ever be circumscribed in detail?

But there you have an ignorant layman's speculation. Animal behaviour properly exists only in animals with psychological development sufficient for behaviour to be meaningfully posited. Conversely, human action, is not in all cases behavioural. In fact, the less behavioural it is, the more pyschological it is, until it passes beyond even the scrutiny of the psychologist to the realm of the neurologist. One question that interests me is, how far cognitive processing can pick lift itself off the ground by the bootstraps -- rebooting in computer science jargon. We certainly can "put our mind to something", "stop daydreaming", drill ourselves to remember by wrote and so on, but is even our imagination infinite or unconstrained? Speed of processing, accuracy and precision of recollection, unwillingness to learn or modify perceptions are all well established limitations on human cognitive processing. If we turn to emotions and affections, these too can be controled, but how comprehensively? How autonomously?

More variety of theoretical models, more precision, yet also more flexibility in terminology ... and traditional academic independence from political agendas ... all seem like they bear on this topic, like so many others, not just now, but throughout history, Galileo and telescopes being the classic example.

Anyway, I ramble.

Suggestion

I am getting the feeling that perhaps this article could be driven by a range of questions. Articulating the history of literature on the topic is not the only approach to the article. Real proposals have been made, some hard data is in, but the iceberg is 90% hidden even now. The questions are well understood however. They are also likely to be shared by readers. Sourcing questions can be easier than sourcing answers. Freud plunged in where angels fear to tread, but launched great lines of research. Contemporary psychologists appear to be much more conservative in stating conclusions, but every bit as imaginative. Perhaps reporting questions from the literature will look much more substantial (and responsible) than one might imagine. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh heaps of questions. Whole new areas the surface of which has barely been scratched. One thing I was reading the other day said that Bowlby suffered from the fact that evolutionary theory had barely moved on from Darwin in his day. Bowlby incorporated a more modern understanding of evolutionary processes in his 1982 edition of the 1969 volume 1, ie the unit is the gene - not the species. Belsky - in incorporating a modern evolutionary perspective into attachment theory and in particular, styles, argues that patterns of attachment represent central features of facultatively induced reproductive strategies. ie the entire attachment system - patterns and all - evolved to promote reproductive fitness in the EEA's. (This is as an alternative to the traditional, value-laden "mental health" way of looking at styles though both approaches regard early experiences as shaping developmental trajectories.) This answers the questions - why should human dvelopment evolve in a manner such that attachment security is shaped by "mothering" rather than just genetics or temperament? Why should early attachment be related in any way to later social and emotional dvelopment?.Fainites ^barley 12:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fun though this is - we don't seem to be doing a lot of actual editing though chaps. Fainites ^barley 12:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean. You can't have the cut off at Ainsworths 1978 book when volume 3 wasn't published 'til 1980! What say you to the 1982 cut off? (Bearing in mind that Bowlby was still contributing in 1988.) Fainites ^barley 16:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tired of scrolling down so far

Yes, it does seem awkward, but what is there in the third volume that we have ever referred to? I don't think it involved any real contribution to the theory. But 1982 is okay with me, although the problem about showing genetic transmission of something relevant was, and still is, that without a suitable way to measure attachment at various ages, there's no good way to show continuity from one age period to another, therefore connecting the phenotype with the genotype is very difficult. In any case, in Bowlby's day some current genetic ideas like epistasis or methylation (e.g. Fragile X) were not really available.

I really question that "hard" and "soft" analogy, and the reason is that when people say something is "hard-wired" they assume that all human beings have the same "wiring", which is far from clear even within the normal range. I'd much rather consider the issue in terms of lower or higher plasticity, and for high plasticity, time-limited (experience-expectant) versus open-ended plasticity. Those concepts allow for the possibility that there could be individual differences at the beginning. Granted, "hard-wiring" does not HAVE to consider a uniform starting point, but that's the assumption often made by those who use those terms.

I'm going to twiddle the lead a bit.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Plasticity is a good concept. However - remember its written for reasonably intelligent, educated people who have no prior knowledge of the subject. Fainites ^barley 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your bit in the lead is still no-wikki'd. It needs a source or two and then it can be un-no-wikki'd. Fainites ^barley 09:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good enough?

I wasn't really planning to put in anything about plasticity, just hoping you weren't going to pursue the wiring thing. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

i wasn't going to put it in. its just an analogy I quite like. Its just that analogy's can mean different things to different people so are probably best avoided. The info's fine - it just now sits a little oddly with th what used to be the first paragraph. Still - haven't got time to look at it tonight.Fainites ^barley 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bowlby actually sets out what he means by "instinctive" - to be used as an adjective only. he means, as related to behaviour, such behaviour to be a result of activation within a particular envi..... why type it out here? I'll stick it in with the ref. Fainites ^barley 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that he said this about "instinct", just that the implication for the readers of his day was different than the one for most readers today. The old guys read "it's not all learned the way the behaviorists tell you", and today people read "none of this is learned". What B. meant, and what we need to convey, is that members of our species at a given stage of development are very ready to form a preference for a small number of people who interact with them, but it takes some months of suitable experience for them to do so, and the behavior that shows the preference is not identical in all situations. Is that what you understand when someone says "instinctive"? It probably is, but I don't think it's what the average reader will think. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I stuck in the way he was using it in a quote. You click in ref 10 and takes to to a quote in the notes. What do you think? Or do I need to find a better quote? It would look odd to just remove it from the passage summarised from P&G. About a third of volume one is about instinctive behaviour so I was thinking Alistair is probably right to suggest we should explain what Bowlby means by it - whether he's right/wrong/ou-of-date or whatever. (I also noticed that one of the criticisms, dated 1960, is based on an extremely reductionist view of what was meant by 'instinctive' which is not how Bowlby describes it at all in the trilogy).Fainites ^barley 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the lead - I've never come across anything other than this theory called "attachment theory" as such - though I have come across the phrase "theories of attachment". be that as it may - is there a source for saying "attachment theory" means Bowlby? Fainites ^barley 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

S. Freud had an attachment theory, M.Klein did, Gewirtz did, Otto Rank sort of did, but I can't think that I've ever seen one of those called "attachment theory", even by the theorist. As for saying attachment theory is Bowlby, I did, in "Understanding attachment", p. 23, if you think that's Wikificacious.

As for "instinctive", I guess you're right that it would look odd to hoick it out. Can there be a link to some other information about instinct, with a brief explanation here?

Did you ever see William James' discussion of instinct-- he says that to a hen, an egg is a never-too-much-to-be-sat-upon object. That seems to cover one aspect of instinct, anyway-- Jean Mercer (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Click on ref 10 in the middle of that passage. 82.69.73.181 (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)(That was me - F)

The question is, what did the term mean to JB and his contemporary readers? I promise you that there have been changes in the meaning of "instinct" from James' time through Bowlby's until now-- this is one reason it is very rare nowadays to see professional publications in psychology that use the word at all. Descriptions today would be more likely to refer to the level of plasticity of the developmental event. But I'm hoping to present this material in a way that reflects Bowlby's meaning. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible to sum up what Bowlby meant by it as he goes on about it enough and presumably intended his readers to understand what he meant by it. This though doesn't reacher the readers of summaries. 82.69.73.181 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Very true, but then one is hit by OR complaints. I keep being told i have to have a secondary source for these summings-up. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah no! A fair summary of what an author says is fine. After all - you can't reproduce the whole book. Thats not OR. cf "Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." So a fair summary of what meaning of "instinctive" Bowlby says he's using - provided it comes from Bowlby and not what other people might say instinct means - is fine. Fainites ^barley 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This certainly permits chery-picking, however. And in this case, what Bowlby said about instinct would be within the context of his contemporary readers and not the context as it exists today. But go on, F., let me watch what you do here and maybe I'll understand this better. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm hunting for either a better quote from Bowlby or a suitable secondary source that encapsulates what he meant by instinctive. Fainites ^barley 22:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Try this quote from Bretherton in the Notes. [4] What do you think? Fainites ^barley 07:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alastair Haines - Tired of scrolling down so far

Alastair I note your comments above and your interest in Freud. I would be interested by your comments on my second video below, if you have the time.

Kingsley Miller

John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation

Bowlby's 'Monotropy' - A Child's Tie to His Mother

Dear Kingsley, thank you for the invitation to view and comment on your video.

I can only respond as an educated and interested layman. I am a neophyte in reading on this topic, and have no qualification specific to forming judgements regarding the professional and clinical opinions of researchers in the area.

I enjoyed your video presentation immensely.

Your first point is profound, and I have read it in many contexts—mothers very often describe feelings of guilt.

You do not expand much on this point, I think rightly. It is not your main point, and most viewers could be assumed to be able to readily supply verification and appreciation of significance.

Your main point, if I understand you correctly, is almost entirely subliminal—"toddlers need fathers too".

I like your approach to a contentious issue. Rather than list writers for and against, you address a key theoretical issue in one writer—monotropy.

You articulate the theory of monotropy in a way Bowlby would be satisfied with (especially as so much is directly quoted from him). You support it with images that evoke and support the intuitive acceptance the theory lends itself to, while alerting viewers, in advance, that this theory is widely considered false. You conclude with a brief editorial comment that shows you side with those who reject monotropy.

I found very helpful your quoting of Bowlby's own caveat that monotropy is to be understood as descriptive rather than a hypothesis of causation.

You left me reflecting on just precisely which child-care issues in political discourse may still presume monotropy.

I speculated that child custody issues, on the one hand, and issues related to parental leave and availability of child-care may be at odds in their interaction with theoretical work regarding parental, specifically maternal attachment.

Child custody law and precedent tends to elevate concepts that may be related to maternal monotropy, where the child-care industry tends to downplay such ideas.

The impression I was left with, as a reflective viewer, was that our society has definitive legislation in advance of definitive clinical and theoretical results. Such research would seem to be logically foundational to "seeing justice done" in such legislation.

I am jumping a long way, but governments willing to legislate in such areas, appear to me, to make themselves responsible to invest in research that informs the issues and so makes manifest the justice of their laws.

Going right back to the first clear point in the presentation—mother guilt—this alone makes the topic controversial, but controversy is an argument in favour of clear and objective writing, not an argument against public discussion. I think your video is exemplary of clarity and objectivity, handling controversy by allusion rather than avoidance.

I learned much to my benefit by the manner, not only the content of your presentation. Both are matters relevant to the aims of Wiki in presenting an article on this topic. I thank you for your contribution. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have been given an option by user Neil on my talk page.

I am afraid Martin's interpretation of the case has made the value of mediation in these circumstances very difficult and I shall have to consider the situation very carefully. In my view it is Fainities and Jean Mercer that have been guilty of filibustering by confusing issues.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have left it a bit late, Kingsley. Today's the day, is it not? Jean Mercer (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jean, please don't poke things. Kingsley, if you would like a few more days to decide whether you wish to press ahead with mediation, that's fine. Martin's involvement with the case has ceased, and I (and Seddon) have stepped in. Should you choose not to go through with mediation over this issue, that's also fine - it will mean the chances of a mutually agreeable resolution decrease, but this doesn't mean it's impossible. Neıl 龱 14:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Internal Working Models

The history section on this is a bit thin. Fainites ^barley 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I need to go over the background again-- there's some intermediate person other than Craik, but i don't remember who. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Melanie Klein had something to do with the early development of the idea, but my grasp on who came up with what is rusty. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, Klein focused on the role of fantasy rather than of relatively veridical cognition. Not that that isn't a model, of course-- but Craik's point was that the model is a good enough representation to guide behavior.

It's odd to read Craik and see how obvious it all seems, when his name is so little known. i guess that shows how we've absorbed his ideas. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cas! It puts it down to Craik but doesn't say anything else. The question - does it need anything else there or is the description given under 'tenets' enough for the whole article? Fainites ^barley 07:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah - here's the intermediate person (from Bretherton) "Complex behavioral systems of the kind proposed by Bowlby can work with foresight in organisms that have evolved an ability to construct internal working models of the environment and of their own actions in it (a concept taken over from (Craik, 1943, through the writings of the biologist J. Young, 1964). The more adequate an organism’s internal working model, the more accurately the organism can predict the future, However, adds Bowlby, if working models of the environment and self are out of date or are only half revised after drastic environmental change, pathological functioning may ensue. He speculates that useful model revision, extension, and consistency checking may require conscious processing of model content. In humans, communicative processes-initially limited to emotional or gestural signaling and later including language - also permit the inter-subjective sharing of model content. On an intrapsychic level, the same processes are useful for self-regulation and behavioral priority setting." Fainites ^barley 07:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was Young I was thinking of, but he is obscure as can be. That's why I went with Johnson-Laird. Unfortunately, none of these things take into account differences between child-ish and adult-ish cognitive processes.Jean Mercer (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Attachment styles

Surely the piece at the end, about school behavior, should either not be called "recent research", or should be sourced to something more recent than either Bowlby or Bretherton? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks odd doesn't it? It predates our involvement I think. I can't, at first glance, find anything in Bretherton which says this. I wonder if those refs are orphaned? It shouldn't be difficult to find a ref for this. Fainites ^barley 07:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You know I'm sure I've seen that school sentence somewhere but I can't remember where. I will find it though! Fainites ^barley 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Monotropy

That statement by Ainsworth (nothing to contradict hypothesis) is rather disingenuous, don't you think? A hypothesis is tested by looking for information that supports it AND information that fails to support it, or that supports a mutually exclusive prediction. If there's nothing to contradict it, that means nothing specific-- could be that the data were irrelevant to that hypothesis. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bowlby quoted it and I was trying to encapsulate what monotropy originally actually was which doesn't seem to be very clear. Feel free to fiddle with it. I don't know whether Ainsworth is being disingenuous or not. Maybe there just wasn't the data to say more at the time and that was as far as she could go. I would agree though that from the scientific point of view 'nothing to contradict the hypothesis' doesn't get very far in terms of whether there is anything to support the hypothesis! It seems unlikely though that she would make such a statement based on irrelevent data. I'll see if I can find the original. Fainites ^barley 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be another moon-made-of-green-cheese issue. But you know, there's a curious thing about monotropy. It was suggested by analogy with imprinting, but in fact although the little duck follows only a particular big duck, when the little duck grows up he or she is willing, nay, eager to mate with practically any suitable big duck. So the imprinting may have been on one individual, but the result generalizes as new behaviors emerge. And a good thing, or there would be some awfully inbred ducks. Also, of course, although captive birds someimes get imprinted on human caregivers, they can sometimes with great care be brought to accept a conspecific mate. So, again by analogy, even if there were a monotropic attachment at one time, that could very shortly change to include other individuals. Unfortunately only people like Gewirtz had the patience to do the longitudinal work that would examine this issue. Jean Mercer (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, though monotropy always included other people. (Thinks - what kind of "great care" exactly encourages ducks to fancy other ducks? the mind boggles. Beautifully presented duckweed?). I'm looking to see what if anything Bowlby said to to the effect that the attachment to the principle figure was qualitively different but it all seems very ambiguous. He says that although by 12 months a plurality of attachment figures was the rule "these attachment figures are not treated as the equivalents of one another". P&G quote Ainsworth et al 1978 as "clarifying" Bowlby's concept of monotropy by saying he did not mean only one attachment figure but implied there was one principal attachment figure to whom others were secondary. "This implies a hierarchy of attachment figures". Again - this doesn't really help on the qualitative issue.

It would be daft from the point of view of evolutionary adaptiveness to limit your options to only one if there are more available as back ups in case the first one fails or disappears but you absolutely have to have at least one. So it would make sense to direct effort to securing the first one - and then having done that collect some others I suppose. P&G also say that van Ijzendoorn et al present monotropy and hierarchy as distinct models whereas Bowlby incorporates both into one model. This topic is getting more confusing by the moment. I suspect Rutters description "...insofar as it was taken to mean attachment with just one person, qualitatively different from others. Rather, there is seen to be a high degree of selectivity and very definite hierarchies...." is probably as about as clear as it gets. Would I be right in thinking there seem to be two views - even amongst the "attachment community" - as to what Bowlby meant? Fainites ^barley 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So it seems to me-- there are many flowers blooming in this matter (two views). But it does seem to me that there would be a possible advantage to monotropy, perhaps outweighing having several options or back-up people. That is, it's possible that the child's monotropy and related behavior conveys to the adult the importance that he or she has for the child, and thus reinforces (general sense, not "rewards") the adult's inclination to respond to, care for, sacrifice for the child-- and this might become ever more important during the runabout toddler and cranky preschooler periods. So, monotropy could be like "cuteness" in its appeal to us to devote ourselves to the child who appears to be devoted to us. I am not claiming Bowlby said this, of course! Just saying that monotropy could have an adaptive value beyond the obvious not-running-away one.

We so often seem to come back to the question, why do people care for their children-- I don't mean the species survival value, but the mechanism or the cues the child gives that make this happen. Perhaps all of attachment is a way to get our friends and relations to be nice to us, after we lose the cute appeal of the first 6 months of life. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Main (1999) says "questions surrounding monotropy and attachment hierarchies remain unsettled" so who are we to settle it? She also quote Watson again re the advantages of mental monotropy in times of danger. Fainites ^barley 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So after all this - how should that little section in tenets be altered? How about quoting Bowlby as in "almost from the first many children have more than one figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike.....there is a strong bias for attachment behaviour to become directed mainly towards one particular person." Then go on with a summary from Rutter (1995)(as above) - then a summary from Main (1999); "although there is general agreement that an infant or adult will have only a few attachment figures at most, many attachment theorists and researchers believe that infants form "attachment hierarchies" in which some figures are primary, others secondary and so on. This position can be presented in a stronger form, in which a particular figure is believed continually to take top place ("monotropy")......questions surrounding monotropy and attachment hierarchies remain unsettled." Or is Mary Main out on a limb here? Fainites ^barley 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What did you think of the Bretherton instinct quote by the way? (ref 9). Fainites ^barley 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Both are very sensible ideas, using the Main and the Bretherton pieces. Interesting to wade through all this, then think of the message that all these issues are already well-understood! Jean Mercer (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? What do you mean by that last bit? Do you mean we are re-inventing the wheel?Fainites ^barley 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think we are-- I refer to the off-Wiki message i received a week ago-- wink wink nudge nudge. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh go on. Do tell. Has some great attachment theorist in the sky given you a definitive answer? Fainites ^barley 19:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a seagull actually. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not - Jonathon Livingstone? Fainites ^barley 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Its quite a good discipline though - to actually have to find the sources for things one hadn't really thought about. Fainites ^barley 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag

I have removed the tag as there will now be no mediation to resolve these issues.[5] Fainites ^barley 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not removed the Mediation tag.

I have replaced the {{NPOV}} and {{POV-title}} tags because these matters have not been resolved.

The page is incorrectly titled according to your own point of view.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, KM-- no doubt this will attract people's attention. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)