Talk:Attachment theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

TO DO

Find decent secondary sources to enable the addition of brief sections to developments on ecology ie Bronfenbrenner etc and Crittenden. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Recent developments section

The following was an addition to the recent developemtns section. It is sourced to a blog and as far as I can ascertain the book mentioned is published on the blog. I have left a message with the editor and am awaiting confiirmation of notabilioty, reliability and source. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

An Italian psychologist, Andrea Vitale , recently formulated a theory that re-reads attachment in evolutionist terms. His starting point is: «why do mothers create insecure children? » The answer lies in the analysis of human social behavior, which – unlike that of all other mammals – has three unique features. Indeed, human beings can 1) form groups of millions of unrelated individuals, whereas animals may gather a few dozens of related individuals; 2) perform anti-instinctive actions, such as not eating even though they are hungry, attacking even though they are not angry, or not attacking even though they are angry; 3) be ordered to act by third parties, or ordering others to act. No animal has any such feature. A mother who reduces her affective signal - not only separating from her child, but also not looking at it, not holding it in her arms, or holding it with an unconsciously contracted muscle tone – triggers an alarm response in the child, aimed at reducing the risk of predation. For millions of years young mammals have interpreted the drop in the maternal signal as decreased protection, therefore as an increased death risk. Without realizing it, human mothers continuously send their children danger signals, due to a constant affective signaling defect – or parental deficit – which, although not exposing them to any real danger, induces them to be alarmed, to inhibit their autonomous actions (alone, they would not know how to save themselves), delegate the mother to perform their actions and seek protection in the same subject who caused the alarm, i.e. their own mother. Thanks to this automatic stimulation system, their autonomous initiative is gradually inhibited, so they can be conditioned to perform the actions they were ordered to carry out through a reward and punishment mechanism which is similar to the one circus animals are trained with. The human species is the only one that adopted a collectivism which is more similar to ants’ than monkeys’, based on the principle that each one cannot report to oneself, but rather to the social entity it is a part of. Transforming a selfish monkey into a “communist” man – in the literal and not ideological sense of the term, meant as common production and consumption – entails subjecting it to a conditioning process whereby he is forced to relinquish command. The benefit of this is his pigeonholing into the vast, supra-individual society. The cost is subjective neurosis , due to the contrast between original instinct and cultural education – which, in Freudian terms, was the conflict between “desire” and “defense”.

Anna Murolo (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I'm an italian psychologist interested in Attachment Theory and I believe that the parental deficit theory could be a very interesting recent development that enrich this article. I'm not really expert in wikipedia and so I'd like to know what kind of information do you need about my add. Thank you, Anna Murolo (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes it looks very interesting. I read some of the website. Two things. Firstly this article tries to cover the whole of attachment theory which as I am sure you appreciate is a huge subject. If you look through the article you will see that for many things there is just a brief mention and then a link to a separate article. Like Mentalization for example. I see you have written an article on Parental deficit. What this article really needs is a brief sentence or two explaining the concept and then linking to the PD article. Secondly, on sources. Everything has to be sourced to a reliable secondary source and the concept has to be notable. A website blog would not be considered a suitable source for introducing new theories or concepts into a a psychology article - particularly one that is a featured article. Has the book on parental defecit been published and if so - who by? Are there any commentaries on it by noted academics/theorists in the field or does it appear in any scholarly or academic works about the subject? If so we can cite those sources. Hope this helps. Here are some links to policies; Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, Verifiability, Citing sources, No original research, What Wikipedia is not

How about something like this (assuming an appropriate source can be found);

• • Italian psychologist A. Vitale, thinking in evolutionary terms, has formulated the theory of Parental deficit in which the parent unconsciously sends alarm signals to the child triggering the alarm response. This leads to increased protection seeking behaviour by the child towards the parent, despite the fact that it is the parent causing the alarm. This process results in the inhibition of autonomous actions, making the child more susceptible to conditioning. The purpose is to enable the child to fit more satisfactorily into human society, at some cost to the child. Feel free to improve on this. For other readers - here is the blog and book.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm agree on a brief mention that links to PD article and your suggest is ok. About sources: the italian publishing on this theory is "Dizionario di psicologia del deficit materno", di A. Vitale, Aracne Editore (2008); academic works are not still done. Thanks, Anna Murolo (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Aracne editrice Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the "dizionario" an adequate secondary source when there seem to be no primary sources? I don't understand how this fine point works out under Wiki rules. It seems that you would have to have academic publications first. Jean Mercer (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is a good enough secondary source as I don't read Italian. It seems odd for the book to be published on the web though. Perhaps it should wait until "academic works" are done or at least this theoretical development has been reviewed.I can't find the book named on google or at Aracne Editrice.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here the book published by Aracne that you don't find http://www.catalogoaracneeditrice.eu/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=AracneWeb&-loadframes Anna Murolo (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it here. You have to put thename of the book in the search engine. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Found other books written by the author and published:

"Attaccamento e teoria dell'evoluzione" di A. Vitale in "Realtà e rispecchiamento. Dalla teoria dell'attaccamento alla relazione terapeutica", a cura di A.R. Pennella, Edizioni Kappa (2005) "Il potere emotivo della falsa coscienza. Il caso di Carl Gustav Jung", di A. Vitale, Aracne Editrice(2006)

"Normalità e patologia nelle cure parentali", di A. Vitale, Aracne Editrice (2007)

"Narcisismo e mentalizzazione", a cura di A. Vitale e V. De Blasi, Alpes Italia (2010) Anna Murolo (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis and other lacks

What about the influence of Attachment Theory in modern psychoanalytical theorys? Attachment is on of the most significant fundamentals in self-psychology, object-raltion-psychology and other modern concepts. The most attachemnet reserchers got an psychoanalytical backround or connections. Visible in the publications. A lot of clinical-concepts are foundet by psychoanalysts. Bowlby seems to be complete rehabilitated. Thats no new development in PA. You can see cross-fertilization especially in the theory of representations. I would call it takeover of attachmant theory by psychoa. The role of psychoa. in the development of attachment theory is narrowed or forgotten. Also the further development based of attachment. For example mentalization. This discription of Attachment Theory should not be honored. There's also al lack of basic theorys, for example: M. Main cross-generational-attachment and modern neuroscience. From Germany Widescreen ^® 12:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide some specific sources providing the material you say is lacking. It is difficult to describe attachment theory comprehensively in a single article. I had thought of a separate article called Attachment theory and psychoanalysis to chart their mutual history/influence on each other and so on. There is also a History of attachment theory article that could be expanded. (Mentalisation is included twice in the article with links to the relevent articles.)Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

For exaple: Stephen A. Mitchell proofs his relational theorys by attachment. Arietta Slade is Psychoanalist. Joseph D. Lichtenberg also refers on Attachement. en.wp even don't know how Lichtenber is? A clue: [1]. Fonagy anyway reserches in attachment [2]. So did Beebe & Lachman [3]. This is just an extract of connections. but the main lack or better underrate is the missing explanation of cross-generational effects of maternal attachment representations by M. Main and the AAI. A further important person in neuroscience is Allan Schore. How is Schore? He connects Attachment and the development of the brain and summarized the emergence of attachment. sry my english ia awful Widescreen ^® 01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fonagy is covered in "Recent developments" here Recent developments - Whereas Bowlby was inspired by Piaget's insights into children's thinking, current attachment scholars utilise insights from contemporary literature on implicit knowledge, theory of mind, autobiographical memory and social representation.[125] Psychoanalyst/psychologists Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have attempted to bring attachment theory and psychoanalysis into a closer relationship through cognitive science as mentalization.[99] Mentalization, or theory of mind, is the capacity of human beings to guess with some accuracy what thoughts, emotions and intentions lie behind behaviours as subtle as facial expression.[126] This connection between theory of mind and the internal working model may open new areas of study, leading to alterations in attachment theory.[127] and in clinical applications here Attachment theory and research laid the foundation for the development of the understanding of "mentalization" or reflective functioning and its presence, absence or distortion in psychopathology. The dynamics of an individual's attachment organization and their capacity for mentalization can play a crucial role in the capacity to be helped by treatment.[156][160]. I am aware that psychoanalysts, having comprehensively rejected Bowlby in earlier years, have now incorporated him back into psychoanalysis. But this article is about attachment theory not psychoanalysis. Cross generational effects are mentioned. What is the missing "explanation" you wish to add? Regarding neuroscience, the editors did consider how much of this to add in the biology section but it is still a relatively new area. I will have a look at the sources you mention and see if I can identify the gaps. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! My english is not good enough to work at articles. What I'm trying to say is, that Attachment and Psychoanalysis is an inseparable cooperation. Itself the terms of Attachment-reserchers are psychoanalytically cointed. They use Terms like Objekt or Objekt-Relation, Representation, Self and others to explain psychological processes. Terms in Cognitiv Psych are often not adequate to explain these processes If you want to explain, what Attachment Theory is, you can't deny psychoanalitical influences. But this ist the state of article.

If you just mention in passing that maternal attachment styles have influence in attachment of their childs, you cut of one of the most important and influential statements of attachment theory. Maternal care behavior is not an remarkable phenomenon. Furthermore attachment disorders is not only a dsm category. Disorders been described by attachment theory down to the last detail. Generally attachment reserchers are not agree with manual categorys of attachment disorders. They got there own categorys. Widescreen ^® 12:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well Bowlby profoundly departed from psychoanalysis theory and practice and was ostracised by them as a consequence. Modern psychoanalysis has caught up with him but they can hardly claim credit! I don't think maternal attachment styles is just mentioned in passing but I will check the relevent sections to see if it needs to be made clearer. As for attachment disorder - there is not space in this article to go into the issues surrounding attachment diorder but you will see there is an article called Attachment disorder which attempts to disentangle the various uses of the term. That article specifically refers to proposed alternative classifications by Leiberman/Zeanah and so on. It also refers to the pseudoscience versions of attachment disorder. There is also an article on Reactive attachment disorder though that one carefully follows DSM/ICD-10 and avoids too much speculation.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We had wondered about including Schore etc in the biological section or the recent developments section. I think you are probably right that it should be mentioned with links to the relevent pages.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mayby my view on disorders is infuenced by german and psychoanalytic literatur about attachment. Bowlby always search the dialogue whith psychoanalysis and vice versa. So the canadian psychoa. society heard lecturs of bwolby for example. It's not a question of credit what psychoanalysis left from attachment theory. It's a question of interaction that had taken place in the late 1980s. 20 Years of common development now. Bowlbys theorys came in an inappropriate moment of dogmatic controversy in psychoanalysis. And 30 years too soon. That underlines the prospective character of Bowlbys works. If you just describe the development till Bowlbys ostracised, you just telling the half of the story. Widescreen ^® 10:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The entry in "Recent developments" now reads; Whereas Bowlby was inspired by Piaget's insights into children's thinking, current attachment scholars utilise insights from contemporary literature on implicit knowledge, theory of mind, autobiographical memory and social representation. Psychoanalyst/psychologists Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have attempted to bring attachment theory and psychoanalysis into a closer relationship through cognitive science as mentalization. Mentalization, or theory of mind, is the capacity of human beings to guess with some accuracy what thoughts, emotions and intentions lie behind behaviours as subtle as facial expression. This connection between theory of mind and the internal working model may open new areas of study, leading to alterations in attachment theory. Since the late 1980s, there has been a developing rapprochement between attachment theory and psychoanalysis, based on common ground as elaborated by attachment theorists and researchers, and a change in what psychoanalysts consider to be central to psychoanalysis. Object relations models which emphasise the autonomous need for a relationship have become dominant and are linked to a growing recognition within psychoanalysis of the importance of infant development in the context of relationships and internalised representations. Psychoanalysis has recognised the formative nature of a childs early environment including the issue of childhood trauma. A psychoanalytically based exploration of the attachment system and and an accompanying clinical approach has emerged together with a recognition of the need for measurement of outcomes of interventions. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article says this on parental representations; Recent research has sought to ascertain the extent to which a parent's attachment classification is predictive of their children's classification. Parents' perceptions of their own childhood attachments were found to predict their children's classifications 75% of the time.[42][43][44] 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For neuro-science, I thought we might use this one; Back to Basics; Attachment, Affect Regulation, and the Developing Right Brain: Linking Developmental Neuroscience to Pediatrics. Allan N. Schore, PhD wherein he explains it all for paediatricians. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest extreme care in following Schore's presentation of this material. Anyone who wants to use Schore's material needs to read his sources, especially with respect to generalizing from species to species. I have a paper in press in "Theory & Psychology" that comments on this and other recent attempts to update attachment theory, but I don't suppose it will be out until December. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reading "Toward a neuroscience of attachment" by James Coan again and have recalled why we didn't put in anything about neuroscience before. It's all exciting stuff but somewhat speculative, hence the current concentration in the article on stress mechanisms. He ends by making recommendations as to the development of a future neuroscience of attachment.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Schore's 'Book Affect regulation and the origin of the self' got nearly 2000 Citations at Google Scholar. I think, Schore got enough reputation to cite him here without a review like that. Widescreen ^® 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth - I think it should be mentioned - but not as if anything was established fact as it were. It's the new area of scientific exploration but it's somewhat in its infancy. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's nearly impossible to set a scientist or science as established. As well it is just a small part of the reserch field in neuroscience. But I think the reserches of Schore got enought reputatin in neuroscience, cognitiv science, psychology and AT that it would be careless and at the end wrong to conceal Schore. His statements about the affectregulation cycles and the development of attachment seems to be state of the art in this part of reserch. some statements are a little bit overgeneralized like the: the right brain, is the place of Unconscious. But thats his style. Widescreen ^® 12:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Widescreen ^® 17:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What is? Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bowlby being described as a 'psychoanalyst'

Given Bowlby's complicated relationship with psychoanalysis I am not sure that this is well worded. As it is, it implies that Bolwby fits neatly into the category of psychoanalyst which is clearly not the case. It might be better to simply add something like, Bowlbly, trained as a psychoanalyst, although I doubt this should be in the first paragraph of this article. My point is - the most important thing about Bowlby was not that he was a psychoanalyst and the difficulties between the two camps (attachment and psychoanalysis) at the time are minimised by the current wording. user:Wildeep33 (23:16, 13 September 2010)

Well he was a psychoanalyst - and very serious about it. He was also a psychiatrist and understood science. He is only one of many psychoanalysts excluded by the dominant group over the years. That was a feature of how psychoanalysis was at the time. Anna Freud said "Bowlby is too important to be lost to psychoanalysis" but they ostracised him all the same. He remained a psychoanalyst though, and no doubt this was an important part of his thinking. The lead also includes the words In the early days of the theory, academic psychologists criticized Bowlby, and the psychoanalytic community ostracised him for his departure from psychoanalytical tenets; What happened and a brief description of the dispute and differences is included in the body of the article in the history under psychoanalysis. I'm not sure I agree that Bowlby should not be called a psychoanalyst though. I mean - he was actually clinical director of the Tavistock.

The editor in the section above is of the view that the article pays insufficient attention to the extent to which attachment theory and psychoanalysis have, more recently, found common ground - particularly those who espouse object relations. I am aware these things are controversial though and much discussion of it is beyond the scope of this article and needs an article of it's own. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Text of Attachment (psychology) article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainites (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page link

Title: Entire copy of article to be merged with this one

This page is about attachment in psychology. For other uses, see Attachment theory. In attachment theory psychology, attachment is a product of the activity of a number of behavioral systems that have proximity to a person, e.g. a mother, as a predictable outcome. The concept of there being an "attachment" behavior, stage, and process, to which a growing person remains in proximity to another was developed beginning in 1956 by British developmental psychologist John Bowlby. According to Bowlby, the concept of proximity attachment has its origins in Charles Darwin's 1856 Origin of Species, which "sees instinctive behavior as the outcome of behavioral structures that are activated by certain conditions and terminated by other conditions", Sigmund Freud's 1905 Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and his 1915 Instincts and their Vicissitudes, which according to Bowlby "postulates part-instincts, differentiates the aim of an instinct, namely the conditions that terminate instinctive behavior, and its function, and notes how labile are the objects towards which any particular sort of instinctive behavior is directed”, and Konrad Lorenz's 1937 theory of imprinting. The 2001 book The Ontogeny of Human Bonding Systems by research psychiatrist Warren B. Miller and academic psychologist Joseph L. Rodgers offers an alternative approach to Bowlby, based on social bonding theory. Attachment theory is concerned with the child's perception of the bond between the him/herself and his/her caretaker and the consequences this has for the child's emerging self-concept and developing view of the social world. Bowlby's theory (1969, 1973, 1980), which was the first formal statement of attachment theory, is an evolutionary-ethological approach (Ainsworth et al., 1978). According to this view, infant attachment behaviors are controlled by a distinct, goal-corrected behavioral system, which has a "set goal" of maintaining proximity to a nurturing adult and a biological function of promoting the child's security and survival (Bowlby, 1969) Attachment—particularly the role and importance of contingency—has been studied extensively by behavior analysts (see Child development). This research supports the notion of attachment as operant based learning. ok. Clarification I hope I haven't tried to say too much here. If so, please excuse the mess. I think I should clarify here that I understand and accept WP rules re Neutral Point of View and No Original Research. And agree that hackers and vandals disrupting articles just for the fun of it, people who don't read or listen carefully or who take a biased point of view and refuse to hear and consider other viewpoints (including a consensus among scientists); and people who want to use WP to publish their research without peer review are seeking the wrong forum. But I'm also a witness to the misuse of the authority of science--scientists are only too human. To promote personal agendas for power and prestige; the bias of some scientists who refuse to listen--sometimes to their own data, sometimes for decades. And I've seen how scientists can get lost in their own jargon and/or their colleagues miss what they are saying. So I hope WP will keep that in mind. Careful reading and understanding of what is read should not be banned from WP. Consider the constraints Bowlby had to deal with--ostracized by psychiatry, working carefully to analyze and explain data from the research of many. He had to word things carefully so that what he said wouldn't be rejected out of hand. And then, after over 20 years' work he finally publishes--and the women's movement takes him to task. As a woman I deeply sympathize with their frustration. But pitting women's rights against infant's needs was not the right answer... So sometimes I get a bit impatient when something that's self-evident gets ignored. Yes, I think crying (aka vocalization) is a form of seeking proximity for newborn infants who can't physically seek proximity with their primary/secondary attachment figures. From what Bowlby said it's obvious he was aware of this... Consider the difference between ground-nesting birds and tree-nesting birds (who have secondary altriciality like humans). The latter are entirely helpless; they depend on their parents for food; they cannot fly for a time while they grow and develop. Ground-dwelling birds must be mobile from birth because of predators. Their attachment-seeking is obvious. Tree-nesting provides automatic protection so it doesn't require mobility. The adult birds seek proximity of their offspring.--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I am not sure what you are getting at here...? Are you concerned about a segment of the article? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Clarification of Clarification The above Clarification is in response to Fainites' comment on crying. A question is whether careful reading is an essential contribution to an article. And, yes, I am concerned about a segment of the article. John Bowlby says, "Much nonsense has been written about the behavioural equipment of a human baby during his first months of life." (p. 268) Bowlby started out by distinguishing between "attachment behavior" of the child and "caregiving behavior" by the adult. But these are in fact reciprocal behaviors--which he says (p. 272). And he compared the easy-to-identify proximity seeking of a child who can crawl or walk with the imprinting/attachment behavior of ground-nesting birds (ducks and geese) and ungulates who can immediately follow their mother because they can walk at birth--because in that era that was animal behavior that was widely known. But he also noted and brought attention to the fact that gorilla babies couldn't support their full weight at birth and depended on help from their mother for 2-3 months (p. 191). Surely he had noticed that human infants have no way to manifest ambulatory attachment behavior at birth! And so is crying, which elicits proximity-seeking from adult caregivers, a form of early attachment behavior? I believe it would be more accurate to state that-- Attachment begins to develop after birth and is clearly manifested by or after 6 months of age. Must we remain trapped in an explanation of attachment theory limited to what Bowlby could spell out clearly because he was limited by what others could hear?--(or, as a parallel, should a definition of evolution be limited to Darwin's insights on evolution, and ignore what others came to understand later on?). A distinction needs to be made between "original research" and careful reading. I may read something--slowly--various times because I've found that with skim reading I, (and most people) miss things that are indeed there. Margaret9mary (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC) The article is mostly written from secondary sources - as required. Here is the passage on attachment behaviours. It saus infants smile, babble and cry to attract the attention of caregivers. How do you think it could be improved/made clearer?: The attachment behavioural system serves to maintain or achieve closer proximity to the attachment figure.[17] Pre-attachment behaviours occur in the first six months of life. During the first phase (the first eight weeks), infants smile, babble and cry to attract the attention of caregivers. Although infants of this age learn to discriminate between caregivers, these behaviours are directed at anyone in the vicinity. During the second phase (two to six months), the infant increasingly discriminates between familiar and unfamiliar adults, becoming more responsive towards the caregiver; following and clinging are added to the range of behaviours. Clear-cut attachment develops in the third phase, between the ages of six months and two years. The infant's behaviour towards the caregiver becomes organised on a goal-directed basis to achieve the conditions that make it feel secure.[18] By the end of the first year, the infant is able to display a range of attachment behaviours designed to maintain proximity. These manifest as protesting the caregiver's departure, greeting the caregiver's return, clinging when frightened and following when able.[19] With the development of locomotion, the infant begins to use the caregiver or caregivers as a safe base from which to explore.[18] Infant exploration is greater when the caregiver is present because the infant's attachment system is relaxed and it is free to explore. If the caregiver is inaccessible or unresponsive, attachment behaviour is more strongly exhibited.[20] Anxiety, fear, illness and fatigue will cause a child to increase attachment behaviours.[21] After the second year, as the child begins to see the carer as an independent person, a more complex and goal-corrected partnership is formed.[22] Children begin to notice others' goals and feelings and plan their actions accordingly. For example, whereas babies cry because of pain, two-year-olds cry to summon their caregiver, and if that does not work, cry louder, shout or follow.[8]Fainites barleyscribs 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Two-year olds don't cry because of pain? No that isn't what is meant. An infant cries because of the pain. A two-year old in pain has an aim in mind - to get the caregiver to come and do something about it. Fainites barleyscribs 21:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I, as an adult, cry out when pain is unexpectedly inflected but not to get anyone's attention. I may be 100 miles from the nearest human being, but I still do it. How do you explain that? Am I summoning a caregiver? When Does Attachment Behavior Begin? On page 265 Bowlby says, "When he is born, an infant is...equipped with a number of behavioural systems ready to be activated...the building bricks for the later development of attachment." and on page 267 says that when a baby starts locomotion, "then his attachment to his mother-figure is evident for all to see (my emphasis)." It's obvious that this behavior can't appear suddenly, but was developing over time. Just as a baby doesn't suddenly develop lungs at birth because s/he starts breathing, attachment behavior is something that has matured over a period of months. Bowlby explores the issues in Chapter 11--The Child's Tie to his Mother: Attachment Behavior Chapter 14--Beginnings of Attachment Behavior Chap. 14 examines neonatal behavior. The studies were done over 30 years ago (much more work has been done since then), but it's clear that a baby is born a social being. Although generally friendly with everyone who approaches in a friendly, nonthreatening manner, a baby "does so in a more marked fashion towards his mother.." (p. 266). A baby's first responses are primarily olfactory and auditory. S/he shows preference for the voice of his/her mother [which s/he has been hearing in the womb--something Bowlby wasn't aware of, but we know now] and her smell; the baby's various inborn behaviors tend to increase proximity of the other (p. 266) and the mother and child's behavior is mutually reinforcing (p. 274). "[D]ifferential responses of these kinds are present even during the first twenty-four hours after birth" (p. 273).--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Are you saying you think there ought to be more detail in this article? What do yoy think ought to be added? Another place for a more detailed examination of pre-attachment/attachment behaviours in neonates might be Attachment in children.Fainites barleyscribs 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Fainitges is in charge of this aricle, so it is hopeless to suggest anyn changes. He/she butts in at every suggestion of changes. Loopy48 (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I keep an eye on it certainly, it being a featured article. What I am discussing with Margaret is what she thinks is either inaccurate or lacking from the article. If you don't have anything constructive to add, don't expect any more responses.Fainites barleyscribs Margaret - my understanding of what Bowlby distinguishes is pre-attachment behaviours - Phase I (6 to 8 weeks) and Phase II (8 weeks to about 6 ish months). The infant recognises it's mother/familiar caregiver and uses crying and early social behaviours like smiling and babbling to attract and keep attention - ie maintain proximity. Infants also develop grasping quite soon and hang on to their mother/caregiver (not as well as monkeys but well enough to attract notice that they are doing it). He doesn't see this as actual attachment though as although the baby will seek proximity to familiar caregivers it's unfussed by having any adequate caregiver. The fact that there is no difference in outcome for babies adopted pre-6 months lends some support for this. I suppose the issue is whether there is sufficient research to be able to say there is a different understanding of early attachment now. I have included Stern and all his work on early attunement in the developments section. Do you think there should be more?Fainites barleyscribs 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Fainites - Between the main article Attachment theory, the Talk page, Maternal deprivation and History of attachment theory and related entries there is much to sort out, so I'm not jumping into this hurriedly. Re my primary concern--Can attachment be described in a way to make it more comprehensible to all? The article is good, but editing can state it more clearly and easier to understand. Since it's 29 pages long it would help. Remember that the best writers have editors. When the first paragraphs (up to half a page) function as a reader-friendly abstract--a brief, concise overview--readers will know if they want to read the whole article. (Tomorrow I'm going to edit my first comment, above, as an example). Q. Concerning secondary sources: Much criticism of Bowlby was due to carelessness. A typical example: John Bowlby was accused of saying that only the natural (birth mother) could be the primary attachment figure. Bowlby was from an upper-middle class family in which, as was customary, he was raised by a nanny; his birth mother was emotionally distant. His nanny was dismissed when he was four and he grieved her loss as though he had lost his mother. How could he have said what his critic claimed he said? The problem was probably due to misreading. I've read about the various criticisms of Bowlby and reread the book only to find these were misinterpretations. So the first thing I do is go back to the original source. So does it really have to be written mostly from secondary sources? If so, why? One of the most frustrating problems in various related fields is that infant development from birth to 6 months is virtually left out, almost as if a newborn baby were a blob and nothing were happening. But see, in Attachment, pp. 268ff under the subheading "behavioural equipment of the human neonate." and-- Bowlby--"When he is born an infant is far from being a tabula rasa. On the contrary, not only is he equipped with a number of behavioural systems ready to be activated..." p. 265 And--"As [Ainsworth]emphasizes, there is reason to believe that, with more systematic and more sensitive observation, instances of each kind of discrimination would be seen weeks or even months earlier than any she was able to observe..." p. 300 subheading "Patterns of differentially directed behavior." Attachment is relationship, but no one perceives, feels emotion or relates to others without a brain and neurological system and existing programming. This is a basic principle. They didn't have the advanced brain scans we have today but Bowlby and Ainsworth they knew brain and neurological development was part of the picture (I will cite it as soon as I find the page).Margaret9mary (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC) OK. I had to argue for ages with some person who insisted Bowlby said it was natural mothers only. I ended up typing out great chunks of Bowlby to prove it wasn't so! (I think the exchange is still on the maternal deprivation talk page somewhere). It's amazing how many people still believe that. I had hoped we had addressed this in the article though. One reviewer queried why it was in as it wasn't necessary and I explained that it was because of the number of even professional people who believed it had to be mothers or at least females. (The same person also refused to accept Bowlby was the progenitor as it were of attachment theory. He's gone now). Currently it says Infants form attachments to any consistent caregiver who is sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them. The quality of the social engagement is more influential than the amount of time spent. The biological mother is the usual principal attachment figure, but the role can be taken by anyone who consistently behaves in a "mothering" way over a period of time. In attachment theory, this means a set of behaviours that involves engaging in lively social interaction with the infant and responding readily to signals and approaches.[12] Nothing in the theory suggests that fathers are not equally likely to become principal attachment figures if they provide most of the child care and related social interaction. How about beefing up the point about the innate readiness babies bring to social/attachment behaviour - and then doing a section in much more detail on the Attachment in children article? Currently all there is is this: Pre-attachment behaviours occur in the first six months of life. During the first phase (the first eight weeks), infants smile, babble and cry to attract the attention of caregivers. Although infants of this age learn to discriminate between caregivers, these behaviours are directed at anyone in the vicinity. The adaptiveness point is dealt with later. Regarding secondary sources - that's the way wiki works. Of course Bowlby can be used as a primary source for what he says and what he said attachment is but primarily it needs to be secondary sources. We stuck to mainstream ones as you can see. We had long discussions about how to present what attachment theory is now as opposed to the original. In fact, Bowlby has stood the test of time remarkably well all things considered.Fainites barleyscribs 16:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Headline text I agree. It's amazing how many people, including professionals, don't understand the basic principles of attachment. That's one reason I've been going on at considerable length on this Talk page. I mentioned my experience in editing came from writing letters to editors of newspapers. Rather than let them edit it to adapt to their limits on space I had to figure out how to say something in the fewest words possible and to make it clear.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Well I had to argue quite strongly with some reviewers to keep in the section that describes the basics of attachment and attachment behaviours as it's not quite as obvious as it sounds. What I'm not clear about though is where you think this article is lacking. I'm not saying it isn't, just I'm not clear what you want to do. Do you want to take it section by section? Do you have copies of the sources already used or are there any other's you favour? Fainites barleyscribs 00:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I apologize. I went off to do something else and hadn't finished. For years it's been obvious that many people, lay and professional don't understand the basic principles of attachment. Obviously we aren't explaining it well enough--or in ways they can understand. You said that Bowlby had stood the test of time. Yes, indeed. He described the basic principles involved without having a brief outline and without having all the data that's available today. We are still "unpacking" what he said and it's implications. Perhaps I should explain something. My mother came from a wealthy family in which the women left the children to nannies. My mother was the first in various generations to raise her own children. Her lack of parenting skills obliged me to do major rehabilitative work as an adult. And so I have experienced the problems of attachment from the inside out and often had to find my way on my own. But both my parents taught us scientific methodology starting at the age of 3 years old and that helped. Harry Harlow's baby rhesus monkeys gave me the first insights in 1961. And I'm deeply thankful to a psychologist in the early 1990s who listened to my story for a few sessions and then handed me his copy of Bowlby.Margaret9mary (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC) [User:Margaret9mary|Margaret9mary]] (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I noticed the comments concerning Allan Schore. He wrote a new Forward to the edition of Bowlby's Attachment that I have. Is this an indication that he is recognized as a source worth citing?Margaret9mary (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Oh blimey! I was going to add something about that stuff but completely forgot. I was looking in the Handbook for a suitable summary. Do you have Cassidy and Shaver's Handbook of Attachment? It's a compilation of contributions from just about all the names you've ever heard of in attachment giving the up-to-date position plus research on just about every aspect. You can get it in paperback through Amazon.Fainites barleyscribs 11:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I just spent the last hour looking at the Handbook of Attachment--read part of the Intro online--sounds good!--and various related books and articles. But my primary concern re attachment is short articles, primarily for laypeople--and for professionals not in the field of child development but who work with children. There is nothing! reader friendly on attachment--especially healthy attachment. In the U.S. as you probably know, extended parental leave is all but non-existent and, not just among low-income single mothers who work and don't have close family to help out, many live in a state of perpetual crisis, their preschool children bounced from babysitter to babysitter. And many older children are virtually raising themselves. Then there are professionals--medical doctors, educators, counselors, etc. without a clear understanding of attachment and its importance. In addition, very few people have the time or capacity to read multiple books on any subject--and attention spans are short. That's why Wikipedia is so important. It usually provides something akin to a pamphlet in length and is understandable to (at least) the informed layperson. Ahem, I've noticed you asking indirectly what are my credentials. Raised by scientists I think what I'm better at is being a go-between, for communication between specialized work and ordinary people. Not a science journalist either. I deliberately don't immerse myself in one specific field. But I do write about what know because I've experienced it. If that isn't okay for Wikipedia, let me know. Honestly,Margaret9mary (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Good Lord I never ask about credentials unless people claim to have them. I never say anything in that regard myself. Unless people edit in their real name there's no way of checking so there's no point. It's just that the 2010 Handbook is about as up-to-date as it gets really. The ideal on wikipedia is for something that can be understood by a reasonably well-educated person with little or no prior knowledge of the subject. This is a valid aim but sometimes unrealistic I think. I can't make head or tail of the maths articles. Fainites barleyscribs 22:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC) That's because mathematicians--and many scientists in other fields of specialty--have forgotten how to speak the Queen's English or American. If you want to read something I contributed to check Double Bind--I had 18 of my early years of it and have some expertise in how to survive it and recover.Margaret9mary (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)205.167.120.201 (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) (belated comment) Allan Schore has written some good material on the psychobiology of attachment. another thing to chase when time is sufficient...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Yeah there was a discussion about it above. The trouble is - it's all still a bit speculative. You can't really say anything absolutely definite about it all yet. I was going to add a bit of Schore to the developments section. I've got a sort of round up paper and the Handbook for it - but the handbook really describes at as new area for exploration. There's alot of nonsense on the Net from AT types stating simplified bits of neuroscientific theorising as if it were an established done deal. (And of course - they have the Cure!). Fainites barleyscribs 13:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC) What I would like to do There are some principles about attachment that are so obvious that often they aren't spelled out clearly, but are mentioned only in passing. I would like to spell them out. These are-- All mammals are social beings. All mammals exhibit some degree of attachment. (see below) Attachment provides protection from predators, but this is only one aspect of it. And although nursing provides food this is only one aspect of it (as Harlow pointed out) Nursing promotes (obliges) proximity. In addition to protection- Attachment provides a longer opportunity for growth and development--and learning. Learning includes observing and imitating, and interacting with, adults; developing better motor skills, survival skills and social skills. Peer play provides an opportunity to practice these skills. (Gregory Bateson states that all mammals play). Attachment also promotes the establishment of the set-points of homeostasis of various physiological systems of body regulation. Attachment is involved in brain and neurological development and establishing patterns of behavior, especially social behavior. Infant attachment is the foundation on which all other relationships are built. These things that are true in animals are greater in human beings. Some sources--the decisive study on the bonding hormone, oxytocin, was done comparing prairie voles and montaigne voles. Oxytocin is stimulated by birth, nursing--and sex. i.e. it's about bonding. Sorry I can't finish this today. I need some time to think if there are things I've forgotten about. Margaret9mary (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Summation I wish I could have written this first instead of the above 8 pages. Be that as it may... What's missing from this article are what Gregory Bateson called the fundamentals (see below). These are independently known facts...[in this case facts known independent from attachment theory]. In the Introduction to his book, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Bateson says: “…in scientific research you start from two beginnings, each of which has its own kind of authority: the observations cannot be denied, and the fundamentals must be fitted. You must achieve a sort of pincers maneuver...If you are surveying a piece of land... you have two bodies of knowledge, neither of which can be ignored. There are your own empirical measurements on the one hand and there is Euclidean geometry on the other." pp. xx-xxi Some facts re mammals that relate to Attachment are-- All mammals nurse. Nursing requires proximity, which facilitates social interaction. Therefore nursing in mammals is the first and primary promotor of attachment. All mammals are social animals, (at least in infancy, even animals who are loners as adults). They have a period of growth and development in infancy. During this time they hone their inborn skills [even baby birds must learn to fly!]--that is, they learn-- through practice through observing and interacting with adults and through play, especially with peers (and, as Bateson notes, all mammals play). they learn such things as how to avoid predators, what foods to eat, what is safe or dangerous, in addition to social skills for living in a herd or family grouping. Learning from more experienced animals is more efficient than learning by trial and error. Much has been written about attachment in human adults. There's a need to distinguish adult attachment from infant attachment. The latter is a symbiotic relationship essential for the post-natal development of the infant brain, neurological systems and the establishment of the foundations of social behavior. The close bond between infant and mother is especially notable in non-human primates, with infants clinging to their mothers during all their waking hours in the first months of their life. This allows an enhanced transmission of experience that Barbara J King describes as a "social communication continuum"--social information passed down from one generation to the next. In humans close contact also facilitates the transmission of culture. (Consider the differing stress levels between rural and modern urban life). For the above reasons the statement that attachment begins at 6 months does not make sense. -- Consider the human infant cared for physically but isolated and neglected socially until they reached the age of 6 months -- like the Romanian orphans. They have missed major developmental stages in every way, even becoming physically stunted for lack of touch and social interaction. For the above reasons attachment begins forming after birth and is fully manifested around the age of 6 months. A careful reading of Bowlby makes very clear that he was aware of this. Nor should human infants be compared to precocial birds like Lorenz' geese and ungulates that would be trampled if they couldn't walk shortly after birth--except to draw a parallel. Margaret9mary (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Agreed. This article misses the boat. It over relies on old timey theories dependent on psychoanalytic thinking. Loopy48 (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopy48 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I disagree with the last bit Loopy - it developed but has evolved, and there is alot that is not "old timey" about various psychodynamic theories. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC) okay, but I think the article overly casts the subject in psychoanalytic terms (see above where Fainities says crying out after age two is always to summon a caregiver when it is clearly not) and is not broad minded in considering other theories. Don't most mammals cry out? Do they do this after a certain age to summon a caregiver, or is this a innate reponse that can summon a caregiver. It's the imputation of motives that I object to. (I'm not expressing this very well!) Loopy48 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Margaret; I think Bowlby calls these pre-attachment behaviours but he makes a distinction between these and the development of clear cut attachment to a specific person/s. Of course - he was putting together a whole new theory with what there was at the time when there was even less cross-fertilization of disciplines than there is now. He practically invented the use of statistical analysis in this field. So there is lots of new stuff. I included Stern. Do you want to draft something up to be added? You could add a summary version here and perhaps a more detailed version to attachment in children. The current bit about Stern's work is Bowlby's arguments that even very young babies were social creatures and primary actors in creating relationships with parents took some time to be accepted. So did Ainsworth's emphasis on the importance and primacy of maternal attunement for psychological development (a point also argued by Donald Winnicott). In the 1970s Daniel Stern undertook research on the concept of attunement between very young infants and caregivers, using micro-analysis of video evidence. This added significantly to the understanding of the complexity of infant/caregiver interactions as an integral part of a baby's emotional and social development.[112]. The article also says that the analogy with imprinting (birds) was dropped so it really appears in the history section only. Had a good picture of Lorenz before but it turned out not to be a free image. A lot of people still write about attachment theory as if it was still based on imprinting though. Have you got Bowlby's 1988 book? Fainites barleyscribs 13:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Conflicts in Scientific Theory--Revised It's important to know the history of a scientific theory to understand the cause of any opposition to that theory. When John Bowlby wrote on infant attachment and the consequences of separation and loss, he was going against prevailing theories in medicine, psychoanalysis and that of behaviorist psychologists such as John Watson and B.F. Skinner. Deborah Blum, in her book on Harry Harlow, has compiled a short history of the medical and scientific trends of first 50 years of the 20th century in her book for laypeople, Love at Goon Park (2002) Chapter 2. At that time hospitals, orphanages and foundling homes had appalling death rates of up to 100% despite keeping infants in isolation to prevent the spread of disease; the children also suffered severe social and developmental disabilities. And yet the insistence of scientists and doctors continued to be that infants should not be touched, held or comforted lest they be instantly "spoiled" . This was a time when men were becoming authorities in childcare and wanted to impose scientific methodology and stern discipline instead of women's gentle and relational ways of childraising. Bowlby faced loud and virulent opposition from the dominant position, although there were many scientists, social workers--and mothers--who quietly disagreed. Or not so quietly. One of them was Harry Harlow who had started one of the first domestic breeding programs for laboratory primates and followed the prevailing rules of hygiene/isolation for his baby rhesus monkeys. The appalling consequences of their lack of a responsive adult to attach to became the focus of his research and provided early empirical evidence for Bowlby's theory. Another significant piece of evidence is Jane Goodall's description of her first studies of chimpanzees at Gombe, of Flo caring for her offspring: In the Shadow of Man (1965) National Geographic/Revised (1971) Houghton Mifflin Co; Chapter 9: Flo and her Family). Bowlby's primary contribution was not original research, but to compile data from many different sources and do major interdisciplinary thinking. The objections from his opponents/colleagues has led to continued confusion of the meaning of his work. The contrast with the reception to Charles Darwin and his Origin of the Species is worth noting. Although Darwin had very incomplete information and had only identified patterns in nature that indicated a direction, he had the good fortune that many working in the field (amateurs and professionals)recognized he provided a good description of what they knew, and evolution was accepted by many of them. The work of thousands of scientists over the last 150 years has filled in the spaces and corrected errors. (The main opposition came from religious fundamentalists). The importance of Bowlby's theory was demonstrated again in the real life 'experiment' of the Romanian orphans during the communist era (to 1987?)--not a laboratory experiment but a unintended result of Ceausescu's policy against birth control that tragically affirms, yet again, the need of infants for consistent caregiver(s) to bond to. Margaret9mary (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Well that's rather what the article says too in summary form. It's a very big subject and it's difficult to cover everything in detail in one article. If you have a lot of stuff about the history and development of attachment theory, would you like to help out on the History of attachment theory article which could use some work? I dumped the history section from here over there because it was getting too big for this article, and not much has happened to it since. There's also some of the early history in relation to Maternal deprivation in that article - including the story about the paediatrician who changed a sign saying "Do not enter this ward without washing your hands" to one that said "do not enter this ward without picking up a baby". Fainites barleyscribs 18:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Fainites barleyscribs 18:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Also - we need to be careful about edits as this is a featured article and therefore it is very important that it remains properly sourced and that infomation is not added attruibutable to existing sources when it is not in fact contavined in those sources. You will see there have also been a number of reviews both before, during and after achieving FA status. Fainites barleyscribs 18:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC) I immediately noticed that you had done a significant portion of the editing of this vitally important article, and have a great appreciation for the difficulties in editing. I started editing the entry on Double Bind in May of 2008 (how difficult to write about something often done with the intention of confusing! Explaining a human behavior that's not culturally determined in an era when people think we have left our biological foundations behind isn't easy either). Also, I honed my writing skills in writing letters to editors for many years). We live in an era in which, especially in the U.S., many are again ignoring the importance of infant attachment. Maternal leave and good childcare for working single mothers is virtually nonexistent and the younger generation today will pay the consequences. Few people can read all the existing literature, so I think the need is great for a brief definition of attachment for the average layperson and something more extensive as a starting point for students and others willing to pursue the matter in more detail.Margaret9mary (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC) You commented, on the John Bowlby talk page, with justified frustration that careful reading is essential. Often an issue can be cleared up by going meticulously over the material. Unfortunately, today, students have so much information to ingest that habituation to skim reading means they miss much of it. Over the weekend I carefully reread the Article and the Talk Page on Attachment Theory, and the most important sections of Bowlby's Attachment. And I'm taking a look at History of Attachment Theory and Maternal Deprivation tonight. If you'd like, I'll discuss here first before editing the article further. But to give an example of what could be addressed--Bowlby says, "Attachment behavior has been defined as seeking and maintaining proximity to another individual (p. 195). "Because the human infant is born so very immature and is so slow to develop there is no species in which attachment behavior takes so long to appear" (p. 183) but [it's] only in the past two decades that attachment behavior has become the subject of systemic study" (p. 183). The fact that human infants are born so immature means that they CAN'T seek proximity by following their mother as ungulates and ground-nesting birds do--it's impossible until a human infant can crawl and walk. They can only cry or vocalize to attract their mother's attention. Nor can they cling as strongly as most primates--but, somewhat like gorillas, who depend on their mother to help support them the first few months, human children depend on their caregivers to carry them. Seeking proximity goes both ways--the mother (caregiver) seeks proximity with the child as well as the child seeking proximity with the mother. So is the child seeking proximity the first criteria for human attachment? Or is crying to get the mother's attention to seek proximity the proper criteria? Certainly Bowlb was aware that comparing attachment in animals that walk on the day they're born or can support their weight clinging in a few days would be an error. And so the question to ask is --what is the evolutionary purpose of attachment?... I refuse to have a computor at home and so am working at the local community college. It's late. I'll continue this tomorrow.--Margaret9mary (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I would have thought crying was the big thing at first. Fainites barleyscribs 08:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Isn't it what the research shows, and not "What I would think"? Loopy48 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Response I Agree with much of what you say. But not only was Bowlby putting together a whole new theory, he was doing it in the face of brutal opposition (see below). He was not PC at the time and, however courageous, he had to think of what and how he said it to not be misunderstood. So he used the term "pre-attachment", but following what he says in other places it's clear he saw this early behavior as part of attachment. "Pre-attachment" is misleading. Perhaps "open attachment" or "early attachment" would be clearer. Attachment theory is based on the reality of attachment. It would be more accurate to say: "Attachment in humans begins after birth and becomes fully manifested around or after 6 months of age". Bowlby says infants show preference for their birth mother's voice within 24 hours after birth and other preference behaviors, and are generally friendly in the first months. By 6 months they are enough in sync (or call it attunement) with primary and secondary attachment figures so they start clearly discriminating between familiar people and strangers. This has much to do with brain development. Human babies' brains double in volume in the first year, and hard-wire in what they experience as a first layer of programming. This article is good! and many paragraphs are exceptional. But it's written for students and professionals in the field; for laypeople it's hard to follow. Also, some things would be clearer with some reorganization. See what I do with the first page. Bowlby grew up at a time when specialization was loose and cross-disciplinary thinking was common (and he was extraordinarily good at it). By the 1950s specialization was strong, but Attachment theory is an inherently cross-disciplinary study. I think there needs to be a special section on infant attachment--perhaps included in the second page. and ethology. Humans are mammals and primates with a greatly increased neo-cortex added on. But much of human social behavior can be found in mammals, especially primates. Imprinting is found in humans, for example the mother being able to recognize her own newborn's cry in a crowd. But other, more complex systems soon take over. By the way, I was a teen in the mid 1950s when Freudian psychology went popular. Anyone who questioned the theories was intimidated--Freudians would imply that questioners were in denial or mentally ill. (Freud was threatened with ostracism in 1895 until he capitulated. Later he ostracised one of his favorites--Ferenczi. I see it as it were a trauma repetition that affected the whole field of Freudianism and extended into the field of psychology in general). Margaret9mary (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Do you know - I once read somewhere that there were no less than 34 separate strands of psychoanalysis type therapy from people who had disagreed with the Freudians canon and so been excluded. Jung, Adler, Ferenczi and Bowlby are just some of the most well known. Fainites barleyscribs 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC) A repetition compulsion?Margaret9mary (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Ah, the Freudians had The Truth TM. Fainites barleyscribs 15:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. By the way, you've mentioned things that need to be done, and secondary sources and have quoted parts of the article. I'm keeping all these things in mind.Margaret9mary (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Something Important missing: the Brain I'm concerned that this article is written more for professionals in the field and remains too inaccessible for laypeople. After all, it's mothers and others who need to know more about attachment. Those of you who are professionals can talk among yourselves in other ways. Three historic examples have demonstrated the crucial importance of attachment for babies and toddlers because of the effect of separation from their mother or primary caregiver: the experiences of WWII in England; Harry Harlow's attempt to set up the first domestic breeding program for primates and the dire consequences which led to his research; and the Roumanian orphans of the Ceasescu regime. These weren't scientific experiments--which would be banned as unethical today. But they happened on such a large scale--that babies respond with such profound grief, or become stunted emotionally for lack of a primary attachment--even Anna Freud who believed fantasy to be stronger than reality, could not deny the evidence. So why, 65 years after the end of WWII are you still so hesitant about attachment? When Einstein wrote his Theory of Relativity he could have no proof. And so he did "mind" experiments. And field primatologists couldn't follow their subjects too closely but fecal samples revealed hormone levels (showing pregnancy, stress, etc.). So when a more direct proof is hard to achieve we must work with what's available. Bowlby said the time had come to connect psychology with ethology (aka biology). Brain development is a key issue. Technology can't read minds, but there are some very measurable things. Oh, dear, The library's closing. To be continued...Margaret9mary (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Both are in the article already. The Romanian orphanage bit is described as a "natural experiment". You're right. It was a great opportunity for researchers! Couldn't possibly be actually set up. The majority of the children did quite well though. Better than they expected. Do you think the article is hesitant about attachment? As you can see we used pretty mainstream sources. It's important not to overstate the case but it has mostly been borne out by research. The bit I am hesitant about is brain stuff because not enough is known to say anything really definite. It's more a current area of theorising and research than anything definitely known enough to include in an encyclopaedia. The hormones are in though under the biology section.Fainites barleyscribs 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Dear Fainites--re the Romanian orphans--the ultimate proof of recovery for abused or neglected children is in how they raise their own children. And yes, they may do well, but it's like living with a disability--much harder than people can imagine who have all their faculties. The available information on brains is found in ethology (which Bowlby stressed). The ability to respond to the environment is essential for every living organism, and so learning and adaptability are essential part of evolutionary development that begins extremely early. Mammals have larger brains than the lower animals. And primates show a very rapid increase in the neo-cortex. - Chimpanzees have brains double the volume of monkeys; humans have triple the volume of chimpanzees (i.e. 6x). This increasingly larger brain supports a growing complexity of social relatedness, ability to learn more, and ultimately culture. Chimp babies' brains double in volume in the first 5-6 years; human babies' brains double in volume in the first year. Nursing is the central mark of mammals. Monkeys nurse their babies for 1-2 years. Gorillas, chimps, bonobos nurse their babies for 3-4 years--which is the same as hunter-gatherers and many village cultures. We find imprinting in precocial birds. In the most primitive mammals we find something more complex--the beginnings of attachment. An extended infancy is typical of mammals and a bond of attachment with their mother supported by nursing--and as Harry Harlow pointed out, nursing to promote the social bond was just as important as the nutrition). Rats at birth are blind which makes them totally dependent on their mother. We could call the mother-infant relationship of attachment a "social womb" a condition of symbiosis that allows infants to hardwire in what they learn from their mother as if it were theirs. The symbiosis of infant attachment serves that purpose. This is so obvious to most mothers--natural and adoptive that we are puzzled that men don't understand this.... Margaret9mary (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Please just be careful to make sure anything you add is supported by either the existing references - or new ones added. Everything in the existing article is supported by the existing refs therefore it is important if you add things to the text to ensure that they are properly referenced.Fainites barleyscribs 21:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Fainites--I thought that only information that was controversial absolutedly had to be referenced. Everyone knows mammals nurse their babies and that humans have a significantly larger brain. The above data on comparative brain size I found repeated in various reference books and online as I was researching a paper and seeking to understand the transition from nonhuman primates to humans. There was general agreement in the data, but parts of the information were scattered and my main task was to bring it together and connect it. When I tried to figure out when kin systems began, I learned that microorganisms have biochemical recognition of kin, so I started going back further to monkeys and then mammals in general). The issue of brain size comparative to body weight complicates it. But whatever the exact data, it's clear there is a major increase in the neo-cortex in humans and that mammals have progressively complex social relatedness. We have a much larger "hard drive" in our brain which allows the storage of much more information and it takes more time to collect that information. That's a main reason why human babies are so helpless. We have less instinctive behavior and more inborn systems that must be activated and adapted to our specific culture.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I meant the neuroscience stuff which is often touted as if it were an established thing rather than the current area of theorising and research. Fainites barleyscribs 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Margaret9mary, can you provide definitions of "instinctive" and of "inborn" as you are using these terms, and tell how you are differentiating between them? That might help make this discussion constructive. As matters stand, I seem to be reading that you are dissatisfied with the article, but I can't tell quite how. I understand your wish to provide good information for families, but I believe it's a mistake to try to simplify a complicated subject and to encourage parents to "buy in" to a belief system that suggests that infants must be cared for in a particular way-- not to suggest that you are doing this, but it's a danger of over-simplification. I would suggest real caution in generalizing from the behavior of one species to that of others. Species differences are not neatly graduated versions of the same basic behaviors. Bowlby was greatly mistaken in trying to apply the imprinting function in birds to attachment functions in human beings, for instance. I'd also like to suggest a careful reading of the Santiago Declaration, www.santiagodeclaration.org, for a statement about application of neuroscience material to parenting and education of young children. Brain science cannot be a royal road to the understanding of behavior until we have better knowledge of behavior than we presently do. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC) FWIW the article includes this quote to explain what Bowlby meant when he talked of instinct.Fainites barleyscribs 16:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I Am Shocked! Defining attachment in human infants as starting at 6 months is not possible! All mammals nurse and all infant mammals have an attachment tie to their mother. Mother Nature uses nursing in all mammals as a source of food, with the secondary purpose of maintaining "proximity" because nursing requires "proximity". It would be more accurate to state that--Attachment in humans begins to develop after birth and is clearly manifested by or after 6 months of age when the child can crawl or walk to seek out his/her mother. And now I understand why Harry Harlow absolutely refused to use the word "proximity." It isn't about maintaining scientific objectivity; the word is used to distance because men feel uncomfortable with the physicality and intimate closeness of the mother-infant bond. Impatiently yours, Margaret9mary (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC) There are other aspects to human relationships than attachment. It's not even synonymous with love and affection. It's only one aspect of development and it's not all encompassing. Attachment theory proposes that proximity is the set goal. An infant may recognise it's mother but ultimately doesn't care who feeds it. Attachment as used in attachment theory is about when it does care. Fainites barleyscribs 00:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Studies of human attachment focus on the cognitive, emotional, and motivational aspects of infant behavior toward adults. Maintaining physical proximity is just an outcome of those developments,which occur even in disabled babies who can't move toward the parent. As attachment develops in the second year, an important change is the secure base function, with which the toddler is able to stay emotionally comfortable by means of contact over space and over time-- more mature attachment means less of a need for literal proximity. It's generally said that attachment behavior begins after 6 months because it's after that age that babies display distress when undergoing abrupt, long-term separations from familiar caregivers. You should be aware, Margaret9mary, that claiming that the age of attachment is in the early months would have serious implications for adoption. As the evidence supports the idea that attachment emotions do not occur until after about 6 months, it would be a shame to suggest to adoptive parents and children that a baby adopted at 3 months would have gone through the agony of grief that we would see in a 12-month-old abruptly separated from familiar people. I'm curious as to how your nursing model applies to attachment to fathers, non-lactating grandmothers, nannies, and so on. Jean Mercer (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Margaret you wrote this; All mammals nurse. Nursing requires proximity, which facilitates social interaction. Therefore nursing in mammals is the first and primary promotor of attachment. above. I was just going to add that I don't agree with this. The first two propositions are fine but do not lead to the third. Attachment derives from social interaction not nursing. As a matter of practice and common sense the two often go together but not necessarily so. Bowlby himself provides details of non-interactive nursing mothers and babies who develop their primary attachment to interactive though less frequently seen other family members. Babies are pre-programmed to interact socially. Attachment develops over time to those who respond. Have you got a source for saying attachment begins at birth? Fainites barleyscribs 16:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your responses. I'm working on a borrowed computer and without references so I can't give a full answer, but, briefly--Yes, I'm familiar with the Bretherton article and agree with much of what you say. My point is that despite all the variation in species of mammals and their adaptation to varying circumstances nursing requires proximity. The fact that humans have developed alternatives in the last 2 centuries (bottles) is an exception to hundreds of thousands of years of humans nursing their babies. Have you read about allomothering? (Hrdy, Mothers and Others and Harriet? Smith, Parenting for Primates). Shared childcare as a norm in human behavior (especially grandmothers, aunts and other family) Attachment is not so much about food as about social development, and social development involves the brain. A baby's brain is developing in relationship to it's experiences from birth (and before of course). The brain development in the first 6-7 months is an adaptation to a specific person. What would happen if an infant were left in isolation and fed by leaving it with a bottle? Sensory deprivation. Lack of social development. So the baby is developing the brain connections from birth for fully manifested attachment at or after 6 months. Therefore it can be said that Nursing determines proximity. The age when brain development for social relatedness begins after birth. With maternal deaths in childbirth a baby can survive because s/he is not yet strongly oriented to a specific person (although prenatal development and genetic kinship have already prepared the baby to be with its birth mother). And the word mother refers to the main nurturer--birth mother, adoptive mother or other. P.S. Good point that a disabled child might never be able to seek proximity!Margaret9mary (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Yes the infant is programmed to form atachments but they are not formed by feeding. They are formed by social interaction. The point about attachment is that it is to a specific person. An infant recognises familiar carers before it forms an actual attachment. This is why infants whose mothers die in childbirth or who are adopted before the age of 6 months have no difference in outcome to those who remain with their mothers (provided of course they are appropriately cared for by somebody). Absence of mother is not the same as absence of care. Preambulant infants seek proximity by social means - smiling, crying, grasping, seeking eye contact etc. Presumably disabled infants do the same. If somebody fed an infant without interacting with it and another person did all the social interaction the the attachment would be to the interactor. This can happen when you have a seriously mentally ill mother. In the worst kind of orphanages babies would be fed without interaction and have virtually no interaction at all. However, it doesn't take much interaction from passing carers for a baby to respond and develop some attachment behaviours. If you look at it from the evolutionary point of view it makes sense. On a simplistic level - the purpose is to survive. Infants seek proximity for survival. Proximity is the most likely way to get safety, warmth, food,care. That is why the set goal is proximity, not food. Fainites barleyscribs 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're getting at,Margaret9mary,when you say that genetic kinship and prenatal development have prepared a child to be with its birth mother. Isn't it more relevant that those factors have prepared the mother to care for that child tto some extent-- e.g., the pregnant mother has some idea at what point she will actually have the baby? Jean Mercer (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Read Bowlby "When he is born, an ifant is...equipped with a number of behavioural systems ready to be activated." p. 265 These systems are genetically determined. It would be good to consider what these are. They must include the capacity to be a social person and to develop attachment. on p. 184 -- Attachment behavior in non-human primates-- "At birth, or soon after, all primate infants, bar the human, cling to their mothers....Mother reciprocates and keeps the infant close to her." see following. p. 198 Attachment behavior in man -- " At first sight it might appear that there is a sharp break between attachment behavior in man and that seen in nonhuman primates....Though the difference is real, I believe it is easy to exaggerate its importance." on the next page he points out that in simpler human societies the mother carries the baby "...but keep in proximity mother and infant do." and mentions the difficulty in deciding the criteria. on p. 300 he mentions that Ainsworth "...emphasizes there is reason to believe that, with more systematic and more sensitive observation, instances of [differentially directed behavior] would be seen weeks or even months earlier." (remember Ainsworth was visiting babies once a fortnight {every 2 weeks) for a few hours. on p. 303 Flight to Mother as Haven of Safety Ainsworth saw it at 8 months; Yarrow saw "infants as young as three months, when distressed, looked towards mother in expectation of being soothed." And so forth. As I said, careful reading is essential. Margaret9mary (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Well we are all agreed there are behavioural systems ready to be activated and that infants differentiate before 6 months. Behaviours have a use in themselves and they lead to attachment but they are not yet attachment at that stage. Attachment is an emotional tie. Baby clings to mother unless mother drops dead in which case baby clings to sister, aunt or granny - if it's lucky (in his "simpler societies" that is). Fainites barleyscribs 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC) This is a great article and certainly merits its FA status. But it's also a work in progress and can be improved. One of the puzzling things about is it imposes the same criteria of attachment to human infants as for ungulates--i.e. the ability of the infant to maintain proximity with its mother. This is a cross-species confusion. Since I'm old enough to remember the time when he started writing it's easy for me to see the origin of the confusion. When Bowlby was growing up many people in England lived in villages and had chickens, ducks and geese. The following behavior of imprinting of their young was easy to observe. There were also sheep, cattle and horses and one could witness the infant attachment behavior of ungulates. In London there were swans, etc. So Bowlby gave these as examples in other species of attachment behaviors in young. These rules do not apply in humans who have less genetically determined behavior and relatively enormous neo-cortexes. Nonhuman primates can't walk but they can cling and thereby maintain proximity. Human infants can do neither of these things, but bipedality freed hominins to carry things so human mothers carry their babies to maintain proximity...To be continued...Margaret9mary (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Attachment theory proposes proximity. That's why the article does! If you read the section on ethology you will see the analogy with imprinting was dropped - though it had given Bowlby ideas - and the criticisms of ethologists about cross-species analogies. Bowlby didn't get his ideas form "people growing up in England" with chickens and swans but from cross-discipline research into ethology/cybernetics etc etc. He was one of the first to do this. He used to hold regular cross-disciplinary meetings where all these things were discussed and travelled abroad to collect research which was not as easily accessible then as it is now. As you can see- attachment theory has been refined over time. However, proximity remains central. The caregiving bond developed by the mother/carer is something else.Fainites barleyscribs 09:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC) A Grave Misunderstanding For the last month I've been puzzling over the various misunderstandings that have plagued Bowlby's first analysis of attachment in human infants and how to resolve them--because they continue to persist. Parts of the answers can be found in introductory courses to child development and psychology, things that tend to be forgotten with advanced studies. But I hope all of you will remember these things mentioned below. ETHOLOGY 1. Bowlby was never confused about cross-species comparisons, although many of his readers were. 2. In ethology one compares species and notes similarities and differences without necessarily equating one with another. Imprinting in birds and attachment in mammals are not to be confused in their origin and function even if they serve a similar purpose. Chimpanzees and bonobos are both Pan, but have some dramatic differences in behavior between them; similar differences are found between subspecies of monkeys and baboons. They can be extremely close genetically and yet have significant behavioral differences. 3. Imprinting in geese; following the mother from birth of calves and foals; clinging in primates are behaviors in animals that exemplify an infant's bond or attachment to its mother and are easy to observe, even for laypeople. CRITERIA FOR ATTACHMENT 4. Establishing the criteria for human infants presents difficulties because of their extreme helplessness. 5. Human infants are attuned to their natural mothers before birth. They have heard her voice in the womb, her heartbeat and breathing; they have felt her rhythms as she walks and moves; they are adapted to the biochemistry of the food she eats and her stress levels. Bowlby cites numerous behaviors in neonates that can be observed in the first 24 hours. PROXIMITY 6. If seeking proximity is the primary definition of attachment why are the criteria of behaviors of precocial birds, ungulates and nonhuman primates being applied to humans? Why aren't attunement and differentially directed behaviors being considered for early attachment in humans? 7. The term "pre-attachment behaviors" leads to misunderstandings, as if those behaviors, which are much more difficult for scientists to quantify, are not part of the attachment continuum. 8. A newborn, who has little muscle strength or motor coordination, will nontheless turn its whole body toward the sound of his/her mother's voice--what Bowlby called "orientation". That's a seeking of proximity--as much as a newborn human can do. 9. Newborns cry involuntarily as a bodily response to discomfort--a cue which their mother responds to--and that achieves proximity. 10. As I pointed out earlier, all mammals nurse their infants; humans universally did so until the invention of the feeding bottle--and nursing requires proximity. Human mothers in hunter-gather and village cultures carried their babies, as Bowlby notes, so the mother maintained proximity until the child could do so. 11. Mary Carlson (now at Harvard Medical School, who was one of Harlows students shortly before he retired) is among those who stress the importance of touch to a baby's physical and neurological development and the development of self-regulation of emotions and bodily function. Touch requires proximity. THE TERM MOTHER 12. If necessary a baby can transfer to an adoptive or foster mother (or father) especially in the first months, and become attuned and differentially directed towards them. But what are the statistics? What percentage of birth mothers raise their own babies? I think we've gone too far in the opposite direction and have disparaged birth mothers. Most people have a deep sense of what a "mother" is and that is why Bowlby used that word. (He says so and comments on the misunderstanding). The term "mothers" is a verb-the nurturer, the person who bonds to the baby to the extent of becoming committed to protect them and fulfill their developmental needs, who becomes emotionally attached to the child...The first page of the WP article on Attachment Theory uses the word "theory" 16 times, but the word "mother" not once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Margaret9mary (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC) THE EVOLUTIONARY FUNCTION OF ATTACHMENT 13. The first task in caring for a child is survival--protection and nutrition. 14. But attachment serves other, equally importanr functions. In all mammals the infants follow (usually) the mother and observe, imitate and interact with her. This facilitates social learning as well as development of life skills. This learning process, as Barbara King noted, wasn't so much a matter of adults "teaching" these things as allowing infants to tag along and learn from those with more experience--and giving them feedback when necessary. Later on, juveniles get together with peers and practice, refining motor coordination, play-fighting and negotiating, etc. 15. Human babies usually choose as a primary attachment figure the person who fulfills their physical needs but also is especially responsive to those social cues of an infant's body language and pre-verbal communication, the person who is physically in sync with them. Before mirror neurons were discovered, scientists and laypeople had already observed how a mother "mirrors back" infant behavior. If the baby smiles and acts excited she smiles back in the same way; if the baby is in distress she makes sounds of distress and then touches and makes calming sounds--comforting, and at the same time modeling comforting--which the baby's mirror neurons pick up. ATTACHMENT IS RECIPROCAL 16. Infant attachment is different from adult attachment in that an infant is not sufficiently developed to act independently. There's an element of symbiosis in infant attachment, especially in humans. The first year is an important time of extremely rapid brain development, when what the infant experiences is hard-wired in and becomes "instinctive" behavior. How a person "mothers" their own children after they grow up begins at this time, and also their ability to feel others as real--that is, the ability to feel empathy.Margaret9mary (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC) CONCLUSION--When I read John Bowlby I understood him to be talking about the above, and it was obvious he was considering many things without having come to clear conclusions about them. In recent years many of these things have been confirmed and/or clarified. Even if there's much work still to be done, to describe attachment behaviors in humans as beginning at or after 6 months is leading to confusion about what attachment is.Margaret9mary (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Please read Chapter 9 of Jane Goodall's In the Shadow of Man (1971) Houghton Mifflin Co. Her account of Flo and her family is an excellent example of responsive parenting in primates (nonhuman and human). Clearly the social behaviors existed before homo sapians big neocortex.Margaret9mary (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Generally, in order to avoid confusion, the baby/child does attachment and the carers equivalent is called the caregiving bond. Bit of an inelegant mouthful I know. It is of course reciprocal in the sense that an attachment requires social responses in order to develop. Attachment in the sense of an emotional bond/affectional tie, is generally reckoned to begin at about 6 months. This does not mean nothing is happening beforehand! All that attunement stuff is important. However, we could carry on chatting about this for ever, but this being an encyclopaedia, the article has to represent mainstream thinking from mainstream sources. Do you have any particular sources in mind? You might find something in Cassidy and Shaver about the first 6 months bit. You won't find very much concrete on brain develoopment because that's all still very theoretical. There is a chapter on it but no firm conclusions.Fainites barleyscribs 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Another article worth reading is the 1995 Michael Rutter one which is a sort of "where are we now" round-up of how attachment theory had developed since it's inception. If you e-mail me from my talkpage I can e-mail you a copy. Fainites barleyscribs 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Hello everybody-- I want to see if I can summarize where M9M is going with the items she lists. This appears to me to be the message: a. Everything about attachment happens a lot earlier than is said in this article. and b. Bowlby thought so too. M9M, please correct me if I have misunderstood. Meanwhile, I'll comment on both of these points, in case I'm right. a. Of course it's logically possible that attachment happens in the first months, at birth, before birth, even (as some claim) before conception. However,it is difficult to conceptualize how evidence for any of these possibilities could be found, and given that we have no way to manage this, it is much more parsimonious to assume that attachment occurs when it appears behaviorally, following common developmental processes, rather than to assume that there are unknown and un-measurable processes at work. It may not be true, but it is parsimonious. One aspect of development relevant to attachment is fear. Fear does not emerge as an observable aspect of infant emotion until about 7-8 months, when loud noises and startling events rather suddenly bring out an emotional reaction that was not seen in the younger infant. At about the same time, we see distress about separation and proximity-seeking in times of perceived threat. It's not exactly clear what happens here. One possibility is that attachment is in part a strategy for dealing with fear, and is not necessary developmentally until fear emerges. Or, alternatively, one could argue that attachment has been present for months, and attachment behavior is only apparent when the child is able to experience fear. Or, it would be possible that attachment behavior is created by reinforcement of an escape from fear, and thus would be learned only after fear emerges. Or,from Bowlby's viewpoint, it might be that attachment and fear emerge at about the same time because fear is actually caused by concerns related to attachment. Some of these options would be congruent with early development of attachment,some not. Another relevant point has to do with variations in developmental trajectories. Many aspects of development are non-linear in their pathways. Little change is seen for a period of time, then re-organization of some function occurs very rapidly (e.g.,independent walking). On the other hand, there are functions and structures that change very gradually and follow a linear pathway. Bowlby assumed that attachment followed a non-linear trajectory, but you,M9M, seem to be claiming that it is more linear and starts at a much earlier point. And that could be, but until we could figure out what to measure we couldn't demonstrate this. Now,as to the point that Bowlby really thought attachment started earlier: I want to point out that even at the time that "Attachment" was published, our present methods for assessing infant functions were unknown, and the extensive information we presently have about the early months was non-existent (and not just non-existent, but substituted for by the speculative approaches of Melanie Klein, for instance). Well into the 1980s, newborns were considered incapable of feeling pain, and their capacities for imitation of facial expressions or preference for complex visual stimuli like faces were unknown. As a result, early functions that are presently well-known did not form part of Bowlby's theory. Neither did Bowlby give much consideration to social interactions as transactional processes. In my opinion, modern work on social activity in young infants deserves an article of its own (and it may have one,I haven't looked), but it isn't really part of attachment theory and therefore doesn't belong in the present article-- until such time that evidence for early attachment is found and incorporated into the theory. Jean Mercer (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC) The discussion is helpful. I've been thinking how to keep this simple. A major issue is why Bowlby dedicates a chapter to "control theory" or "control systems theory." There's only a few minutes before the library closes, so let's keep this light. Jean, my position on prenatal attachment is that the fetus is attached to the placenta. Social relations aren't possible until after the baby is born. Also, the baby has lungs but lung maturity isn't reached until the final weeks before full-term. And so it's best to allow a baby as much of that time in the womb. But also--a heart beat begins before the heart is fully formed. What a curious thing....Attachment develops primarily through social interaction...Margaret9mary (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC) That's cos attachment as meant by attachment theory is an emotional relationship.Fainites barleyscribs 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not at all sure what we're talking about here if it's not emotional relationships. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Is the problem with the word attachment which has a multitude of meanings? Epoxy, umbilical..... Fainites barleyscribs 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Darn metaphors-- can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)