Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 14 September 2010

	Attachment theory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 25, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 24, 2008 Peer review Reviewed October 13, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 30, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Psychology FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementWikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementTemplate:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementAdoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Established knowledge or "just" a theory

The normal "mode" in Misplaced Pages is to state how it is and provide some references to reliable sources to show that this is indeed the established view. There are also some theories that are notable as theories but currently not seen as good descriptions of reality. Compare for example Huygens–Fresnel principle with Corpuscular theory of light. There is also an overview of theories of light in light. I find it hard to discern how the reader is meant to interpret the statements in this article. Is this about how some people think or is it about what attachment really is? How much of this can be copied straight into attachment (psychology). --Ettrig (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory is a theory developed largely but not entirely one person, based on what limited research existed at the time. Since then huge amounts of research have been done and it is ongoing. Presumably therefore it lies somewhere between the two. At the moment however it is still known as "attachment theory".Here's a talkpage section of quotes - compiled for someone who had odd views about Bowlby - which may assist. Fainites scribs 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a sourced statement in the article which states There have been significant modifications as a result of empirical research but attachment concepts have become generally accepted. Is this what you had in mind? Fainites scribs 20:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not say Children need a secure relationship with an adult caregiver. Normal social and emotional development is impossible without such relations. instead of "Attachment theorists consider children to have a need for a secure relationship with adult caregivers, without which normal social and emotional development will not occur."? --Ettrig (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.Fainites scribs 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Simplification of first sentences

Maybe some explanation of the rather drastic change of the first paragraph is needed: 1) There is a principle of most important things first. The originator is not more important than the content of the theory. 2) "explanatory for understanding" is tautological. 3) "descriptive and explanatory framework" is entailed in the concept of "theory". 4) "interpersonal between humans" is tautological 5) relation is almost the same as relationship, but shorter (but I checked Wictionary and will change this back.) 6) the childs need for a close relationship is now mainstream thinking, not a peculiarity of attachment theory 7) this need was described in a grammatically very complex way 8) the attachment figure is obviously recognizable (identified) 9) the increased survival probability is not part of the behaviour, it is not in the childs thoughts, it is the cause of the development of this instinct/behavioural pattern. --Ettrig (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a few further edits. I also changed "relations" backs to "relationships" because, well, because it looked weird to me, to be honest. Looie496 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The childs need for a continous close relationship was proposed in the maternal deprivation hypothesis and supported by ensuing research into that and the development of attachment theory. When Bowlby first proposed it, it was treated with a degree of incredulity by other professionals in a way that seems bizarre now. Its mainstream now largely because, broadly speaking, attachment theory is mainstream now. Of course other people thought this too but Bowlby supplied the framework for the why's and hows. Over time "Attachment theory" as such may become of merely historical interest but at the moment virtually every review of an aspect of attachment still starts with a potted version of Bowlby's attachment theory. They haven't finished testing it all yet.Thanks for the copy-edits and grammatical improvements.Fainites scribs 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, about "relationship". I wrote this in 5) but missed at least one. Sorry. Yes, I too find it much better now. About mainstream: My aim was not to diminish the contribution by Bowlby, but to avoid giving the reader the impressions that attachment is "just" a theory, because it is rather to be seen as a scientific "fact". --Ettrig (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Illustrating attachment

From the article I get the impression that attachment of child to parent or substitute for parent is very important. An important manifestation of attachment in children is behaviour that has the effect of maintaining proximity to parent. It seems to me that none of the illustrations show such behaviour in the child. What we see is parents maintaining the proximity. There is one illustration that shows such behaviour in young geese though. --Ettrig (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tricky one. I suppose the mother, toddler and baby show it. However, sensitive carers probably don't walk off leaving the babies and toddlers to follow - at least, not where people are taking photos! I'll have a hunt around though.Fainites scribs 20:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Puffiness

Here are some typical examples of "puffiness" in the article's writing style that I noticed. None of these are terrible sins, but they will tend to inflate the prose a bit.

• Unnecessary small words that bulk up sentences (e.g. here, here)

• Repetitive lists and words (e.g. here)

• Use of empty phrases and words such as "in fact" (e.g. here (note also the repetitious words here))

• Good old-fashioned wordiness (e.g. here)

These are very small issues and not easy to see. I'll keep rereading the article and trying to prune the prose myself. Awadewit (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Awadewit. I can't see for looking but I'll breathe quietly in your footsteps as it were, in a manner of speaking, taking one thing with another, in the round.Fainites scribs 06:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now 123,000 bytes and 71,000 bytes of readable prose.Not the largest FAC by a long shot.Fainites scribs 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Content remark(s)

Noticed this while doing a modest read-through:

Both sentences in "Firstly the organisation and stability of the mental working models that underlie the attachment styles, explored by social psychologists interested in romantic attachment. Secondly, how attachment functions in relationship dynamics and impacts relationship outcomes, generally explored by developmental psychologists interested in the individual's state of mind with respect to attachment." are fragments. Possibly both are dependent clauses split off of the paragraph's first sentence "Two main aspects of adult attachment have been studied.", but they need to stand as complete sentences or be reincorporated into the first.

Michael Devore (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I did split them from the first sentence. Colons needed I think.Fainites scribs 06:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

cites in the lead

any reason why there isn't a cite for like the first five sentences? i usually expect one in the first couple of sentences for a big topic like this. also, i see this is up for FA, so i'll do my best to get it a once-over and provide feedback. cheers. JoeSmack 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

same for the third paragraph in the lead on ainsworth. JoeSmack 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Old advice from SandyGeorgia is citations in the lead on quotes, hard data, or anything surprising or likely to be challenged. Fainites scribs 20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Down to 122,000 odd kb from 126,000 - by removing extraneous words.Fainites scribs 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Down to 120,000. Thats 68,000 readable text.Fainites scribs 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Down to 116,000 kb. About 64 kb readable text. History/criticism is 20kb.Fainites scribs 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

115,000 kb. Fainites scribs 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

114,000 kb. Fainites scribs 22:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Patricia Crittenden

What about longitudinal developments of the theory made by Patricia Crittenden I think it´s a huge contribution to the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.114.237 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there's been mention of Crittenden before and I thought of putting something in. The trouble is - there have been so many notable contributors to attachment theory, the article could just keep on expanding! Do you have something relatively short and pithy that could go in the developments section? It needs to be froma secondary source about PCs contribution. Not from PC.Fainites scribs 22:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of unfinished reviews from FAC

The editors who were in the middle of reviewing the article when it ran out of time on FAC have kindly agreed to complete their reviews.

I cannot see the opposition in the FAC log. Why was this article not promoted? --Ettrig (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It reached 6 weeks and fell off the bottom of the page. It had one support (Fowler & Fowler), one "Leaning toward support" from a reviewer who then fell ill and couldn't finish her review, and two unfinished reviews from Joe Smack and Casliber. The image issue, which had been resolved by replacement, was not "struck". The FAC monitor Karanacs said That's been up for 6 weeks without achieving consensus for promotion. There were still unstruck image issues, and with no action on the page for the last few days I was not hopeful that it would achieve consensus for promotion soon and that's the whole story. I've been advised to get the unfinished reviewers to finish here and then stick it up again with links to the previous nom to show what the situation was with Support, link checkers, references etc etc etc. Fainites scribs 12:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Ok, here we go!

• "The preschool period involves the use of negotiation and bargaining." - This is a bit confusing - do preschoolers make excellent contract lawyers or something? (yes, i'm being facetious).

Preschoolers eat contract lawyers for breakfast. (Will try and expand a little).Fainites scribs 21:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.Fainites scribs 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't see the golden term 'distancing' - in section Changes in attachment after the infant-toddler period. Speaking of which, the title needs to be changed if you cover middle school. Also speaking of distancing, that article sucks so, so hard at the moment and could use a gloss.

Not really part of AT as such. Will change title though.Fainites scribs 21:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• "This early research was published in 1967 in Infancy in Uganda." - there should be a cite right after that with that info.

Done. The actual book is in the ref section.Fainites scribs 20:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• "These patterns are not, strictly speaking, part of attachment theory but are very closely identified with it." - why is this sentence here? Either patterns are part of the article or aren't.

Removed Fainites scribs 22:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you make Mary Main a non-red link? I always thought freezing behaviors etc were interesting with disorganized attachment. Um, whoops, back to comments.

Will get round to it one day. The Ainsworth article needs a good rewrite too.Fainites scribs 22:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I at least stubbed it with a few pieces of info brashly stolen from a couple of other articles. JoeSmack 22:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I started writing an article on disorganised attachment on psychology wikia at one point but they were taken over by an attachment therapist.Fainites scribs 08:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I feel like the who Attachment patterns section could be much shorter (it has its own articles after all). This is the SSP, insecure = bad, secure = good. Here is the table. Here is the statistical breakdown. Fin. No need for critique of the SSP, save that for its own article.

Well again, another reviewer wanted an explanation of what the SSP was and why it was so important (ie research). He wanted a lot more research actually. I can prune.Fainites scribs 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pruned.Fainites scribs 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Significance of attachment patterns can be one paragraph adjunct to Attachment patterns. The rest should be in its own article. I know one of the struggles has been to shorten this bad boy, and I think a lot of it could be done by separating stuff like that.

Aaargh! I only put that whole section in on the advice of a another FAC reviewer!Fainites scribs 22:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooof, well, I think (and I think others and maybe even you) agree we need to trim this fella down. Thats definitely one way to do it. JoeSmack 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I put a big detailed chunk in Attachment in children and pruned a bit.Fainites scribs 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Children are likely to fall into the same categories as their primary caregiver indicating that the caregivers internal working model affects the way they relate to their child. - there is actually a lot of great stats out there about this i believe if you look around that might be cool to include. XX% of insecure moms have insecure kids, while XX% of secure moms have insecure kids, etc.

• Jesus H! See the Attachment in adults section? Bingo! Two paragraphs about it plus a short blip about the AAI. Thats what the Attachment patterns section should be, or as close as possible.

Gosh no.Attachment in infants is much more important. Fainites scribs 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• A "natural experiment" permitted extensive study of attachment issues, as researchers followed thousands of Romanian orphans who were adopted into Western families after the end of the Ceasescu regime. - why is 'natural experiment' in quotes? Sarcasm? Or something? That's odd.

Will remove.Fainites scribs 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't think i've seen about how people who are insecurely attached aren't completely dicked for the rest of their life. I believe the research says something like ~2 years w/close relationship with a securely attached person can yeld a conversion. Insecure = maladaptive and secure = adaptive and people have the tendancy to float towards what causes the least psychosocial stress.

I don't think it's that definite. Insecure attachment strategies are adaptive in relation to the set goal (and ultimate purpose) of the system. There is an ongoing argument as to the extent to which disorganised strategies are adaptive though. In the "Significance section" I try to explain the correlations between early secure status and later status but it's not absolutely proven - yet! So many intervening variables. It's in the significance section really. I will simplify it.Fainites scribs 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the bit about stability of classifications.Fainites scribs 20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• And an after thought to the above, small amount of research showing attachment to a pet when there is a lack of a primary caregiver or some such? At least I thought, well, it has been a while since I read about that one. Maybe not.

Well they are significant attachments I suppose - and some mammals are very good at attachments. Dogs for example.Fainites scribs 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• History has it's own article yet is 1/3rd of this one. Also I don't see a ton shaved down from the original article. Reducing/moving this section I think is key to shrinking this big ol' article.

Ah well. There used to be a substantial criticism section as well so I amalgamated it with the history section. I'll do more shaving but in a way attachment theory is it's history because it's one of the last "grand theories" and also one of the first evolutionary psychology theories. Awadewit, another reviewer said she appreciated knowing about the criticisms and controversies. Oh dear.Fainites scribs 18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

...ok, let's leave it there for now, after we talk about these I'll finish off the rest. JoeSmack 04:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is difficult isn't it? One reviewer says - nothing like enough research and where's the biology - so two more sections go in. Then another says - what does it all lead to - so another section goes in. Then another says - too long and detailed, take it all out. Somewhere there's the "small but perfectly formed" article.Fainites scribs 21:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, give and take - but you're doing wonderfully. Again, your patience and diligence is astounding. I'll finish my comments in a few days, but recently a lightning storm killed my main PC (don't just assume a plug is grounded if it has three prongs!), so time permitting. My main goal is to reduce the size of this article and make it more layman accessible, so my comments are more about doing that then anything specifically. JoeSmack 21:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reducing the size of a lovingly created article is a bit like de-junking your house. You start off not being able to throw away anything. Then you force yourself through clenched teeth to dispose of a few items of ancient crap. Then you finally get into the swing of it, ruthlessly burn everything without an immediate and obvious use and end up with a plate, cup, knife, fork and spoon, one change of underwear and a minimalist, pared to the bone lifestyle. After dumping 10 whole kilobytes I'm not sure how far along the road I am. Maybe I'll end up with Attachment theory. John Bowlby says kids love their Mums.Fainites scribs 22:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments here: even though young foster children are reported to become more securely attached after a couple of years with a secure foster mother (Mary Dozier's work), that doesn't necessarily tell us that it's the foster mother's IWM that's doing the trick. Could be other confounding variables associated with the adult's status. Once again, correlation doesn't show causality. As for the other statement about insecure mothers-insecure kids, etc., if there's causality at work, who knows which way it goes, or whether it's transactional, with each person affecting the other? If your child acts insecure, it may well be the case that you will feel anxious and insecure as well, and perhaps remember your own childhood in a way colored by your child's present concerns.

As to why insecurely attached people aren't permanently "dicked" (no psychiatric jargon,please!), there are a couple of reasons. One is that there's such a thing as earned security, in which adults use reflection to improve their own views of social relationships (see van IJzendoorn). The other is that insecure attachment is not pathological in itself, it's just another risk factor. Given a not-very-emotionally-demanding life, an insecurely-attached person may do just as well as a secure one. In fact, there are probably some cultural groups in which the securely-attached person is perceived as a fool and a wimp who doesn't know how to handle reality.

It's not ALL about attachment, that's a point that needs making but seems impossible to fit into this article. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made the point in the article about changing from one status to another and the significance of same care conditions in that regard - but would the Dozier point about secure foster carers illustrate it? Or is it just the one study? Where does it appear? Also - is there something neat about "earned security"?Fainites scribs 21:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, I like your perspectives. The relationship is correlative but there are plenty of confounding, interacting variables - agreed. It could be genetic (e.g. temperament), transactional, cyclical-stressors (i.e. related to passed down physical/sexual abuse)...lots of factors there. I just think that psychosocial learning from the primary caregiver is the most simple and obvious factor. And although insecure attachment isn't as big a deal without a demanding emotional life, it is kind of emotionally demanding to BE insecurely attached (you know, interpersonal/confidence/anxiety/fear/anger/disappointment). In short, it isn't ALL about attachment, but it is certainly a big start...

Also, agreed about differences in sociocultural orientation valuing different attachment styles, but you know, not waaay off the mark. But yes, it skews. JoeSmack 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing status:

Dozier, M., Stovall, K., Albus, K., * Bates, B. (2001). Attachment for infants in foster care: The role of caregiver state of mind. Child Development, Vol.72, pp. 1467-1477.

How do you mean,"neat"-- re earned security? Do you mean, is it better than regular? No,a price is paid with depression, according to v. IJzendoorn and Co.

F., I don't know where those page number requests are-- can you direct me? Jean Mercer (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that Dozier paper a review or is it a primary source? I've just been reading on this point (foster carer state of mind) in the 2008 Handbook in a review by Dozier etc. They raise this point but don't quote anything as definite as 2 years.Fainites scribs 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By "neat" I mean short and pithy and won't add too many kilobytes.Fainites scribs 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You did reply about the page numbers by e-mail and I put them in - except the ones that you said referred to a whole book. They're here. About a third of the way down the page there is a collapsed text box from Ealdgyth. She collapsed it because all her requests were satisfied! Fainites scribs 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dozier et al. is a primary source.

I just noticed the reference to Crittenden above. I'm just reading some of her work with greater care than in the past, so maybe I can help out.Jean Mercer (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way--- I don't want to suggest adding to this roly-poly article, but I'm wondering about a matching article about caregiving/parental representations and their measurement. That's what led me to read Crittenden. So often caregiving is referred to as if it were part of the same system as attachment, just reciprocal-- but this isn't necessarily the case and people are moving toward some ways to discuss it. There's a good edited book: "Parental representations", 2006, ed. Ofra Mayseless, Cambridge U.P. (Did I just say I wanted to start a new Wiki article? Why not just shoot myself right now?) Jean Mercer (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody else except PC call it dynamic maturation? The only thing I was thinking of adding to this article (groan) is a sentence in developments to the effect that PC had combined attachment theory with theories like Bronfenbrenner - ecology systems theory - to create a whole life, dynamic maturational model. There needs to be a secondary source rather than PC saying it herself. There is a whole article in the parental side though. After this ones got it's gong.Fainites scribs 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Dozier - sometimes it's unavoidable to refer to a primary source but it's best not to - particulalry when there are so many secondary ones. Dozier herself in her review in the Handbook doesn't give specific statistics like Joe recalls so best to avoid them I'd say until they're much more certain.Fainites scribs 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Crittendens Raising Parents ? Fainites scribs 22:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How's the dead PC going Joe? Burned out completely or recovering?Fainites scribs 21:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for reminding me. Got my ram yesterday, after a few memtest passes i've been doing data recovery today, transferring music/pictures. Looks like my video card survived, yay. Anyways, I'm going to try and get it on finishing my comments by tonight. JoeSmack 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you treated yourself to a whole new lovely shiny one or did you just scrape the soot off? Fainites scribs 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in business. Sorry, had to glean some XML to save my itunes library metadata, move firefox settings, etc. All new, except some cannibalized fans from my old case and kept my monitors. It's good to be back! JoeSmack 19:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Crittenden: I've read very little and this needs to be my project for the near future. I also have just put in a request for her to be invited as keynote speaker for an annual conference-- don't know if others will agree. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand her ideas are pretty much mainstream. It's just that I find it difficult to switch terminologies!Fainites scribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

She does suggest some things out of the mainstream-- for instance, that there's more to understanding the thinking of inadequate parents than the usual attachment categories clarify, and that children develop individual self-protective strategies through attachment experiences, which later get assimilated into strategies for protecting their own children. The emphasis is on the transformation of childhood experience into parenting representations and strategies, which attachment theory doesn't do such a good job of handling. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine who works in the attachment business (as it were) says mainstream thinking has sort of absorbed alot Crittenden almost without noticing. She's right about the age of 16-25 being a bit of a dead area though. Fainites scribs 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to stop all that scrolling

You can't do this on a FAC page.Fainites scribs 21:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

True, this is nice. Ok, here we go.

• After the first two sentences of the Biology section, everything in that paragraph gets conditional, weak...may, generally, some evidence, appears etc. Strengthen up that stuff - if it isn't strong enough to say more definitely then it shouldn't be there.

Greatly pruned. This section was put in at the request of another editor at FAC but the research is all pretty early days really. It is known though that some children are more vulnerable to developing attachment disorders/difficulties than others.Fainites scribs 21:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• In Biology, try not to introduce even more concepts like MCB. This is a book of an article, and the more you can reduce the terms the reader has to remember the better. Also, there's an 'appears' again at the end of par 2. 'Suggests' par 3.

MCB gone. Appears gone. "Suggests" is OK in papers on this subject.Fainites scribs 21:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Break up the second sentence in Child care policies section.

Done.Fainites scribs 21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, use the find command (in firefox hopefully) and do a 'highlight all' for the word and. Too many, it frequently keeps the ability to make sentences run on (conjunctive); i'm not a fan. Please reduce these - just make one sentence two or three.

Aaargghh.Fainites scribs 21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.Fainites scribs 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a TON more to do. When the 'Attachment in adults' section doesn't have a sentence WITHOUT an 'and' until the 9th one...shesh, you gotta cut down. See some of my examples from recent edit history in how to do it - remove em, replace em with punctuation, split the sentence, rephrase the sentence, simply us 'as well as', 'in addition to', 'additionally', 'including' etc etc. I've been finding some sentences with three, sometimes FOUR 'and's! JoeSmack 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what, User:Tony1 tends to have better advice - he's the best at writing prose of anyone I've ever seen. Check out this part of one of his guides here, should help immensely. JoeSmack 23:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. But some sentences do need "ands" you know. Tony1 prefers "and" to "in addition to" and "additionally". I agree with you about splitting/rephrasing sentences where they are too long, but replacing "and" with bigger words or more words has the opposite effect. Fainites scribs 00:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Tony1 says is probably correct - he's a grammar ninja. In fact, I think I might see if he can give a quick glance at this. Preferences for 'and' in certain situations aside, you have to admit, having like 100+ of em here is waaaaay too much. JoeSmack 00:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well true - a bas les ands. On the other hand, meaning needs to be preserved, For example this Additionally they develop preferences for people, behaviours which solicit their attention/care over a considerable period of time is now difficult to understand compared to the original of They develop preferences for people and behaviours which solicit their attention and care over a considerable period of time. The preferences and the behaviours are two different things.Fainites scribs 09:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

||They develop preferences for people and behaviours which solicit their attention|| and care over a considerable period of time. OR They develop preferences for people and ||behaviours which solicit their attention and care over a considerable period of time||. I think that's where it is most trouble for me. How am I supposed to read this? I'm not sure that it matters but either way it doesn't feel right having the only described verb in the middle. JoeSmack 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with Preferences for certain people, plus behaviours which solicit their attention and care are developed over a considerable period of time.Fainites scribs 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the 'prevention and treatment' section, sentence one or two needs a ref.

It's all from the same review chapter from the Handbook reffed after sentence three. I can double up the ref though if that prevents problems.Fainites scribs 21:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the 'Reactive attachment disorder and attachment disorder' section, it might be worth it to note the lack of presence of other (e.g. insecure) attachment disorders? It isn't pathological, and that's part of it as noted by Jean in talk above, but i think it is worth it to say given it is a 'disorder'/has related therapies/tons of research.

Sorry I don't understand this bit. Are you saying include insecure attachment as a disorder or have I misread?Fainites scribs 21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind, I must have spaced on this sentence: "RAD is not a description of insecure attachment styles, however problematic those styles may be; instead, it denotes a lack of age-appropriate attachment behaviours that amounts to a clinical disorder." Doesn't inhibited/disinhibited kinda match with avoidant/ambivalent though? I'm getting into RAD domains which I am more shakey on, but... JoeSmack 17:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! Minefield ahead. See Reactive attachment disorder. It's quite an important distinction as there is a lot of misinformation out there on the web, mixing up reactive attachment disorder, attachment disorder, insecure attachment and the pseudoscientific version of attachment disorder. I'm trying to keep it simple here and direct people to Reactive attachment disorder and Attachment disorder. It may well all change in the next DSM but at the moment, RAD/DAD is the only actual recognised clinical disorder. It's pretty rare. Insecure - particularly disorganised, is a risk factor for psychopathology, not a clinical disorder in itself. However, people may well talk blithely in general terms about "disordered attachment" and so on when talking of insecure patterns. Fainites scribs 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On the surface it looks like extreme ends of avoidant/ ambivalent strategies. However, the supposed point of RAD is not having an identified attachment figure and/or not displaying proximity seeking to an identified attachment figure, ie a lack of age appropriate attachment behaviours. That's why it's so rare because infants will attach to almost anyone however limited they are. You really have to put some effort into creating RAD. Very very bad orphanages with virtually no human contact is one scenario. So many changes of potential attachment figure that the child gives up trying to form one is another. Usually when there are concerns about the more florid and obvious attachment disturbances they are looking at disorganised attachment or the more extreme versions of ambivalent/avoidant rather than RAD.Fainites scribs 09:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's go with that, then i'll give it a second over (probably looking again for length cuts to avoid TLDR). JoeSmack 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for nudging me, i'm going through it again now... JoeSmack 00:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One more once over one last time again

Ha, i think this section title is funny. I did it because i think it highlights one issue overall - sentences that take a few passes to fully get. For example,

"Given that the set-goal of the attachment behavioural system is maintaining a bond with an accessible and available attachment figure, threats to felt security in older children and adults arise from prolonged absence, break-downs in communication, emotional unavailability or signs of rejection or abandonment."

"Attachment theory is a framework of ideas or tenets which connect observable human social behaviours and enable predictions to be made and tested."

"It enables the child to handle new types of social interactions such as knowing that an infant should be treated differently from an older child or understanding that interactions with a teacher can share characteristics of interactions with parents."

"Behavioural problems and social competence in insecure children increase or decline with deterioration or improvement in quality of parenting and the degree of risk in the family environment."

"...how attachment functions in relationship dynamics and impacts relationship outcomes, generally explored by developmental psychologists interested in the individual's state of mind with respect to attachment."

That was only in the first half of the article and i didn't look hard. Run on sentences are fairly common and tend to have the difficulty seen above. Leaves the reader muddled. My favorite is the fourth up there, the amount/use of 'in' is baffling.

Article length is another issue, still feels too long. The history section especially, with its, count 'em, EIGHT subsections needs to be pruned further. All of the subsections seem at odds with one another. This is especially true ending on the 70's and 80's after listing psych domains. The history section is the biggest of the article and is what i would suggest getting brutal on.

There's still too many ands. It's like listening to a presentation where you hear the 'um' so many times after a while it is all you hear! Look at the paragraphs below the table in the Attachment patterns section, beautiful. Thats how the whole article should be authored. Significance of attachment patterns section too, great. Compare it with the first paragraph of Attachment in adults, and Formulation of the theory - overflowing! I know this along with the length issue are frustrating, but that's what this article needs. JoeSmack 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done those above plus some more. Will look again tomorrow. Down to 115,000 kb now (from 126,000)Fainites scribs 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

113,000 kb now.Fainites scribs 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Props for continuing to shave this down, I've noticed the long term effort! JoeSmack 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What's "props" ? It's now 113,000 kb. 61 kb of readable prose! Somewhat less than some recent FA's. What next? Fainites scribs 21:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, it's a plaudit. I'd say it's ready for a second FAC run if you're up for it! JoeSmack 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Where does it come from then? It's not one I've heard before. Anyway - I'm up for a second FAC run as soon as Awadewit has finished her run through. Just trying to think of a way of satisfying her last point about adult IWM's at the moment. Thanks for all your help! Fainites scribs 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

California slang I guess. Props, like to prop up, to support, advocate maybe. Again, thanks for dealing with my continued desire to amend/make things difficult. ;) Let's get this FAC going! JoeSmack 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Like wooden legs.Fainites scribs 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

I am finally getting around to rereading the article! I'm going to list my comments as I read:

• Within attachment theory, attachment means a bond or tie between an individual and an attachment figure (usually a caregiver). Between two adults, such bonds may be reciprocal and mutual but between a child and a caregiver, the tie is based on the need for safety, security and protection. Such a need is paramount in infancy and childhood. The theory proposes that children attach to carers instinctively, for the purpose of achieving security, survival and, ultimately, genetic replication. The biological function is survival and the psychological function is security. - The idea that attachment is a way of providing safety and security is repeated too much here.

• The fourth paragraph of the "Attachment" section should be placed earlier in the section, as if describes infancy and who the caregiver can be.

• I feel like the second paragrpah of the "Tenets" section repeats some of what the fourth paragraph under "Attachment" says. Perhaps these could be combined or some of one reduced.

• Can you explain what 'goal-corrected' means in the article?

• An example is the stem story in which a child is given a scenario raising attachment issues and asked to complete it. - I'm confused by the "stem story" - can you explain this a bit more or drop the reference to it?

Will continue on later. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

All done.Fainites scribs 15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That was fast! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article needs to explain what the internal working model mechanism is at some point.

I beefed up the bit in "tenets" on IWMs. Does that answer? Fainites scribs 22:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Some authors have suggested that adults' internal working models do not have just one perspective, but use a hierarchy of models containing general ideas about close relationships. Within those, they use information related to specific relationships or even specific events within a relationship. Information at different levels need not be consistent. - Some detail could help make this clearer - it is a bit vague at the moment.

Continuing on. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Attachment theory came at a time when women were asserting their right to equality and independence, giving mothers new cause for anxiety. Although attachment theory itself is not gender specific, in Western society it was largely mothers who bore the responsibility of early child care. Those with political agendas interpreted the theory for their own purposes. Early opposition to attachment theory coalesced around this issue. - It is not entirely clear what the controversy was.

Done.Fainites scribs 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The short second paragraph in "Ethology" can probably be combined with the first paragraph.

OK.Fainites scribs 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Some material about the rejection of Freudianism is repeated twice, in the "Earlier theories" section and the "Psychoanalysis" section.

OKFainites scribs

• The "Cybernetics" section does not seem to add anything to the article.

I've linked it, added a bit. Hopefully that helps.Fainites scribs 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing on. Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of "Further reading" lists. Generally, on topics such as this, there is lots of further reading available and therefore any list is very selective. Unless there is a good principle for constructing the list, I'm not sure it is needed.

I've reduced it considerably. Can't bring myself to remove the remainder though.Fainites scribs 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done! Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

All done except adults internal working models which I am hunting for. Fainites scribs 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

All done!!! Fainites scribs 21:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous images

This article contains a large number of images that all (?) seem gratuitous. As rule of good article writing, images should be added when and where they are actually needed to illustrate something that is hard to bring across in the text (or in the rare cases when another good reason exists). This article, OTOH, seems to follow the trend of populistic magazine articles and poorly designed corporate websites by throwing in an image every now and then for optical effect or to satisfy some arbitrary design criterion, e.g. "one image per paragraph". (This is one of many instances of the "pseudo-professionalism" that has become increasingly more common as marketing and business students have come to over-influence fields of which they understand far too little, e.g. good writing.)

I would strongly encourage the original adder to reduce the current images to the needed minimum (having no intention to start an edit war, I refrain from doing so myself), and other editors to, at any rate, not add any new images with a very good reason. 88.77.184.157 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well not being one of the marketing and business students who have come to over-influence fields of which they understand far too little I wouldn't know. There are no plans to add more images though.Fainites scribs 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

Unresolved issues

• "Those with political agendas interpreted the theory for their own purposes." How exactly did they interpret the theory? This paragraph hints at some "bigger picture" conflict, but it's not really clear how anyone used the theory to their advantage.

Well one side said women should stay at home and look after the kids because if they didn't their kids would be scarred for life and it would be all their fault. The other side said it was all an evil plot to to pin women back to their "biological destiny" and deprive them of an equal right to a fulfilling and economically independent life. (Much more recently there are father's rights activists who say it is all an evil plot to deprive fathers of equal dibs in the care of infants and children). I'll try and expand a little - but a lot of the arguments were made in relation to maternal deprivation rather than attachment theory. F.

Done. A lot of the arguments were made around the maternal deprivation hypothesis and are dealt with in more detail in that article (which by the way needs a serious prose review and the addition of rats). The MD hypothesis was used to justify the ending of child care provision (as had been done in the war) thus forcing women back home and freeing up jobs. F.

Looks good. If you're looking to take maternal deprivation through FAC, I'd be happy to review it after we finish with this article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Konrad Lorenz had examined the phenomenon of "imprinting", a behaviour characteristic of some birds and mammals which involves rapid learning of recognition by the young, of a conspecific or comparable object." Sentence structure is somewhat confusing. My first instinct is that the sentence basically states that "Konrad Lorenz had examined the phenomenon of "imprinting" of a conspecific or comparable object" but has an explanation of imprinting thrown into the mix. If that's the case, I would suggest setting it off in parentheses instead of commas to prevent confusion. Also, the phrase "rapid learning of recognition by the young" is confusing. Does it mean "the young rapidly learn how to recognize a caregiver" or something else? Also, regarding the phrase "comparable object"—between which two objects is this comparison being made? Not sure how this relates back to attachment theory, but I suppose this connection will become clearer as the other issues in this sentence are addressed.
• "The learning is possible only within a limited age range known as a critical period." It is not clear what "the learning" refers to.
• "stressing the readiness the child brings to social interactions" It is somewhat odd to say that a child brings readiness to social interactions. How about "stressing the importance of a child's readiness for social interactions"? Perhaps I may have misunderstood the sentence, but that seems like the most logical way to restructure it.
• "Over time it became apparent there were more differences than similarities between attachment theory and imprinting so the analogy was dropped." Is there any time period that can be added here? Perhaps something like "Over time it became apparent there were more differences than similarities between attachment theory and imprinting so the analogy was dropped by the early 1960s." or whatever the appropriate timeframe would be.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been a while since I've seen any activity in this section, so I'm going to unwatch this page and work on some other stuff. If at any point you'd like to continue this review, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please leave a note on my talk page if you would like to continue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The theory and personality disorer.....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=allintitle:+attachment+theory+personality&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

--222.64.23.7 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not auto-direct the following topic to this article....

Attachment styles are mentioned for 6 times in the article and should be in topicality in some way--222.64.23.7 (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+attachment+theory+style&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.23.7 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A%20attachment%20theory%20style&sa=N&tab=sw

--222.64.23.7 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, unless you mean "attachment styles", if linked - which you did - redirects to "attachment theory". Insofar as attachment styles was linked in the article it linked to Attachment in children, not this article. Fainites scribs 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. It looks as if someone changed all the links which have now been changed back.Fainites scribs 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TO DO

Find decent secondary sources to enable the addition of brief sections to developments on ecology ie Bronfenbrenner etc and Crittenden. Fainites scribs 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 scribs 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 Misplaced Pages 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 scribs 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 scribs 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 scribs 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 scribs 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)

Text of Attachment (psychology) article

Talk page link

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 scribs 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: . Fonagy anyway reserches in attachment . So did Beebe & Lachman . 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. 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. 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.. 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 scribs 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 scribs 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 scribs 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 scribs 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. 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 scribs 20:36, 14 September 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 scribs 08:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Thompson RA (2008). "Early Attachment and Later Developments". Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York and London: Guilford Press. pp. 348–65. ISBN 9781593858742. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
2. Cite error: The named reference Robbins was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Fonagy P, Gergely G, Jurist EL, Target M (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press. ISBN 1590511611.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Mercer pp. 165–68.
5. "Psychoanalytic Constructs and Attachment Theory and Research". Handbook of Attachment: Theory, research and Clinical Applications. New York and London: Guilford Press. pp. 783–810. ISBN 9781593858742. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• FA-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Attachment theory