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

Discussion Prior to June 29th Revision

False categorization in attachment styles

The current Attachment styles section reads (to me at least) like it was based on a study that started out with three expected results and worked hard to verify them. It jumped out at me because I apparently belong to a fourth category that isn't listed, which for want of a better term I'll call "Unanxious insecure attachment". I've never been particularly attached to my mother (or any family member or friend), and, based on reports from my parents and elder relatives, was that way even as a small child. Nor am I the only one like this. I have a friend whose younger son is so detached from his nevertheless devoted mother that she, trying to understand his detachment even at 3 years old, once watched him (by covertly following him as he wandered off) calmly explore the length of an entire mall before her protective instincts overcame her need to understand her unusual child. (I'd had virtually no contact with this family, so he couldn't have gotten it from me, which also leads me to suspect this characteristic, while it may be uncommon, is far from rare.) I imagine that if either I (as a child) or my friend's child had participated in the study, we would have shown little distinction in exploration behavior regardless of who, if anyone, was in the room, as we both would have been far too self-involved. (Don't bother with the cracks; I freely admit my own asocial behavior.)

Nor was this the only categorical omission I noticed. Surely one might expect a few children to demonstrate no particular anxiety when a parent left a room, but still give indications that they were quite attached to their mothers. (Perhaps this would be "Secure attachment but detachable", or "Ultra-secure attachment"? I'm not trying to be funny, but it's hard to expand on these arbitrarily narrow terms.) Or was expression of separation anxiety the sole factor considered to demonstrate attachment? If so, it seems rather inadequate and misleadingly narrow.

I've neither done nor read any research that allows me to accurately edit this section to remove any false categorization. But one example that doesn't fit a categorization is enough to invalidate such false spectrum coverage, and I seriously doubt that either of the two others I mentioned is particularly rare, or that I haven't missed more alternatives. Is there someone who can discuss the failure of this section to address a more broad understanding of parental attachment? Does this truly represent the "state of the art" of developmental psychology? — Jeff Q 04:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attachment Theory isn't the same thing as "feeling attached." You sound pretty secure to me, prossibly a bit on the avoidant side (this is my non-expert opinion). Also, it depends on how old you are. The Strange Situation only applies to very young children (1-2 years old or so). After that point, you cannot use the Srange Situation as a method of measurement for attachment. I would suggest finding someone to give you the AAI (see below) if you are really interested in your catagory of attachment. As far as children who don't care when their mother leaves, that is an indication of an avoidant child, but the child could still show secure attachment in other ways. Thus making them Secure-Avoident. No child (or adult for that matter) falls into exactly one catagory 100%. The catagories are not there to classify people into boxes, they are there to provide endpoints on a spectrum. People can be Secure and show Avoidant or Anxious tendencies. If you have insight or questions, I would suggest looking up a local Psychology professor and asking if they can answer your questions or point you to someone who can. Interesting post, I would like to hear what becomes of it --Plamoni 22:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Attachment styles are well-established in current scientific literature. Attachment styles are theoretical constructs that have been tested by different research groups in independent studies. People who have different attachment styles (as determined by standardized measurements) tend to respond differently on various other relationship factors. The fact that many studies by different researchers have found reliable patterns in attachment style correlations undermines claims of false categorization. At the same time, researchers have started to see attachment in terms of two dimensions: a dimension of anxiety about a relationship, and a dimension of avoidance within a relationship. Although you can still classify four attachment styles (high anxiety/high avoidance, high anxiety/low avoidance, low anxiety/high avoidance, low anxiety/low avoidance), many researchers simply use the measures of the two dimensions directly to correlate with other factors and test hypotheses. The section could make mention of this shift, but this would actually end up a fairly minor modification of the section. If anyone would like to know their attachment style, here's the actual questionnaire used in scientific studies: http://www.web-research-design.net/cgi-bin/crq/crq.pl kc62301

Does it need more wiki-ness

This page looks well structured to me. What is lacking in the page (as far as structure)?

there are hardly any wikilinks. there is room for lots in a 2 page article JoeSmack (talk) 20:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Attachment As Drive Fulfilment

This quote, "Attachment theory assumes that humans are social beings; they do not just use other people to satisfy their drives", is surley incorrect.

Standard Behaviourist school of thought on attachment theory rests solely on the mothers ability to satisfy the child's hunger, and Freud identified this and sexual fulfilment.

Unfortunatley, I do not have a knowledge of copyright laws, so I cannot quote at the moment, but the author of the page must surley be mistaken.

The concept of attachment theory requires reconstitution in light of the following:
Dependence Drive
Behavioral dependence is regarded as a drive with bimodal expression wherein the primary expression by the neonate elicits the secondary expression from the parent/caregiver.

Dependence thus described is regarded as a drive due to the behavioral nature and the historicaly ancient and evolutionarily significant influence of the relevant activities. The drive should be regarded as nonhomeostatic in the same sense that sexual drive is but also as quixotic due to the mortal needs of the neonate. The evolutionary influence can be characterized as, the period of infantile, juevenile dependence can not exceed the capability of the parental response. This creates a dynamic which acts to both extend and curtail the duration of the primary dependence period.

Further, there should be a distinction made between the motivations of dependence attachments and attachments of mate selection or competitive sexual selection as well as incorporating the unique qualities of human competitive selection. Wherein, congregation for competitive selection evolved into congregation as competitive selection. All traits conducive to congregation (i.e. socialization/enculturation) thus become subject to the evolutionary influence of competitive selection. Therefore, the period of primary enculturation (psycho sexual stages) is a competitive process within the gestalt of the species and operates in close conjunction with the period of primary dependence. As these two motivations are not congruent and are somewhat incompatible, certain maladies can arise.

Disorganized Attachment

I think this subsection needs to be reworded or clarified. Maybe it's just me, but that section sounds like it's either too profound for my humble self to understand or it's complete B.S. The explanations of the other attachment types seem adequate though. -- 71.2.164.146 06:58, 14 December 2005

It seems reasonable to me, Disorganized Attachment is a quirky thing. The description is very technical in nature and could probably be simplified to be understood by someone without a good deal of background in attachment theory :-P --Plamoni 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me

As a student of attachment theory i believe this page is well structured. However, I agree that the section about the sociality of humans needs to be changed. Bowlby specifically emphasized the idea of attachment as a homeostatic system where we use both our innate psychological abilities and physical abilities to gain proximity to our primary caregiver's. In many cases, this primary caregiver is our mother and essentially all of what we do as a young infant is keep her close to us so that we can feel a sense of security which in turn will allow us the mental freedom to explore the world. Popular wording for this is called the safe haven that is created by our caregivers. However, this safe haven is two fold; on the one hand, the safe haven is there to provide us with the sense of security needed to explore and on the other hand, it is necessary for the safe haven to act as a secure base by which we can rely on if we venture out too far into the real world and find ourselves in unfamiliar territory. I belive that there should be a link to some more recent research called the Circle of Security experiment that is being conducted in Seattle, Washington.

Also, i believe that the attachment classifications listed are correct. There are no false classifications present as was suggested in an earlier disccussion posting. Just because you don't believe your attachment pattern is present doesn't mean you can't fall under one of those categories. Granted, recently, there has been a push to expand the categories of attachment classification; however, there is good evidence that this would result in an over diagnosis of poor attachment as there is a fine line between functionally secure attachment and poor attachment.

One note, a couple of the classification listed (anxious and avoidant) are usually associated with childhood attachment. In adults, these are referred to as Preoccupied and Dismissive (respectively). --Plamoni 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Researchers have started to see attachment in terms of two dimensions: a dimension of anxiety about a relationship, and a dimension of avoidance within a relationship. Although you can still classify four attachment styles (high anxiety/high avoidance, high anxiety/low avoidance, low anxiety/high avoidance, low anxiety/low avoidance), many researchers simply use the measures of the two dimensions directly to correlate with other factors and test hypotheses. The section could make mention of this shift, but this would actually end up a fairly minor modification of the section. Not anything of pressing urgency. kc62301

Adult Attachment Interview

Currently there is no information on this page concerning techniques for measuring attachment in adults. The Adult Attachment Interview is one such example. I am not an expert on the subject and it is a bit much for me to tackle, I think it is a noticable gap. --Plamoni 22:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This study might help some: [1] (warning PDF file). It measures attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance with "self-report adult attachment instruments" (questionnaires). --DanielCD 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would like to know their attachment style, here's the actual questionnaire developed by Shaver and colleagues and used in scientific studies: http://www.web-research-design.net/cgi-bin/crq/crq.pl kc62301

Worthwhile doing something on Mary Main as well, who did loads at Berkeley on the transgenerational nature of attachment (and one of the most important issues) Cas Liber 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adults

Wikipedia needs some better coverage about the adult aspects of attachment. It would take some time for me to figure out what to suggest though. Articles like love-shyness have aspects of attachment avoidance in them, so any such project would likely need a lot of rethinking. --DanielCD 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting any of this wrong, please let me know, as I have not read the books on "love-shyness". --DanielCD 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

How does this relate to Attachment disorder? --DanielCD 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There has been a lot of research on attachment in adult romantic relationships. It would be interesting to know, for example, how it relates to outcome variables such as relationship duration and relationship satisfaction. It would interesting to know how attachment relates to jealousy, support, and intimacy (there are studies out there on these very issues). There are also gender differences in attachment that people in relationships might find interesting. kc62301

Citation

I think a citation providiing a reference for the "some think are cruel" recent addition would be useful. What do others think? DPeterson 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Attachment Measures

The topic of attachment measures really deserves its own section. I removed some of the material I put in on the Shaver questionnaire because it did seem imbalanced to talk only about one method. I'll come back after I finish work on some other Wikipedia articles and, if someone hasn't already done it, create a section that deals with attachment measures. kc62301

I agree with that. I will add citations for the Adult Attachment Interview. 68.66.160.228 11:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also the Strange Situation Protocol for infants and toddlers JonesRD 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

References

I tried to standardize the references using the < ref >< /ref > tags instead of the bullet points. Some of the works included in the references did not seem to have specific citations in the main article. I therefore moved them to a new section called recommended reading. Hope that's okay. I think a recommended reading section could even be expanded.

Controversial Points

Two points do seem somewhat controversial to me. These include:

"Attachment theory assumes that humans are social beings; they do not just use other people to satisfy their drives. In this way, attachment theory is similar to object relations theory." To say we are social beings implies a need for social interactions to fulfill fundamental needs. Self-Determination Theory claims that relatedness is a fundamental human need, and relationship researchers influenced by Self-Determination Theory see attachment as the basis for satisfying the need of relatedness. I think this controversy might disappear if someone expanded on what is meant by not just using people to satisfy drives.

I agree with your point here Dr. Art 12:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think non-organic Failure To Thrive does prove the need for relatedness to attachment figures, the question then is how 'social' is 'social' (ie. community or just attachment figures? Though then again, attachment provides the template for socialization..... Cas Liber 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Attachment Theory has become the dominant theory used today in the study of infant and toddler behavior and in the fields of infant mental health, treatment of children, and related fields." Attachment theory was indeed one of the most popular theories in developmental psychology for awhile. I don't think you can say it was ever the dominant theory, as there has always been popular alternatives, such as Piaget's work and the theories it inspired. I just finished a Ph.D. in developmental psychology at the University of Maryland at College Park in 2000. We briefly read about attachment theory as a historical theory in developmental psychology. Many, if not most, researchers in developmental psychologists are today influenced by cognitive psychology and neuroscience. The Theory of Mind in cognitive psychology, for example, has become a popular theoretical framework for understanding how children interact with others. I didn't really take an interest in attachment theory until I started reading about attachment in romantic relationships. However, I was never a therapist, so I don't know the extent to which therapists continue to rely on attachment theory.

I think that Attachment theory is the dominant theory in at least the filed of infant mental health. For example, see:

1. Handbook of Infant Mental Health, edited by Charles Zeanah, MD., Guilford, NY, 1993.

2. The primary journal for the field, Infant Mental Health Journal.

3. Zero to Three journal and materials

It is true that other theories are frequently used in the study of infant and toddler behavior, depending on the subject of the research (cognitive issues, perception, etc.). However, infant and toddler mental mental health treatment and study seems to rely primarily on attachment theory. (BTW I also recieved my doctorate from the U of Maryland.) ::Dr. Art 12:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct in terms of mental health (counseling and therapy). I question whether it dominates basic research in developmental psychology. There may indeed be a gap between basic research and mental health applications of attachment theory. That may be the theme...basic researchers in attachment theory have shifted attention from children to adults, but mental health professionals still rely on attachment theory in dealing with children and infants. How about a simple hedge, something like..."Although basic research in developmental psychology is influenced by many different theories, attachment theory predominates in the fields of infant and child mental health." Wording could be better, but you get the idea. kc62301

I only wish it were the dominant theory! - however there are widespread practices, such as Controlled Crying, whose underlying principles conflict with Attachment Theory - there is alot of behaviourists and doctors with a biological focus treating children for mental health issues Cas Liber 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for Expansions

I'd like to start some expansions on June 31 (collaboration most welcome!):

New section on the measurement of attachment. This would review the main methods for measuring attachment (giving equal hearing to each), and discuss some of the controversies regarding the use of different measures.

Revision of the styles of attachment section. The current section is a great start. Early researchers indeed proposed three main styles of attachment. However, later researchers broke the avoidant style into two types, forming four main styles of attachment (not including disorganized). Psychoetric analysis of the attachment questionnaire by Shaver and colleagues revealed two main dimensions of attachment. The trend in recent years has been to use the scores for the two dimensions for statistical analyses. Different combinations of the two dimensions still allow classification into the four main styles of attachment. I think all this needs to be mentioned to bring the section on attachment styles up to date.

There may be some differences between the attachment styles used in research about children (anxious, avoidant, ambivalent, disorganized) versus attachment styles used in research about adults. However, I am not as familiar with research on attachment styles and romantic relationships. Dr. Art

This might be resolved by using your idea below of separating sections into children and adults. The section on adults could talk about changes in classification of attachment styles in adult studies. kc62301

New section on stability of attachment styles. Attachment theory has always claimed that attachment styles are learned through interactions with attachment figures, primarily the interaction with parents or caregivers during childhood. The learned nature of attachment styles means they can be changed by experience. The question is how much they can be changed. Bowlby theorized that children develop attachment styles that remain highly stable throughout the rest of their lives. Shaver and a number of his colleagues also view attachment styles as highly stable and therefore like personality traits. These theorists claim people bring the same attachment style to all their adult relationships. Yet, emprirical studies have called these views into question. Attachment styles show only moderate amounts of stability over time, rather than the high stability previously theorized, and people show different styles of attachment in different relationships. The explanation of these findings lies in the concept of working models.

New section on working models. Bowlby proposed that people develop working models of attachment. These working models consist of thoughts, or cognitions, about interactions between the self and the attachment figure. This idea has been extended considerably by advances in cognitive science. A number of studies have related working models to social cognitions. One study suggests that people create hierarchies of working models: they have a generalized working model that summarizes experiences from all relationships, and they have individual working models based on experiences in each relationship. The generalized working model may explain the moderate stability of attachment styles, while the individual working models may explain the variations in attachment observed across relationships and over time.

New section on attachment in adult romantic relationship. This section would look at correlations between attachment and various relationship phenomena such as satisfaction, duration, intimacy, jealousy, and so forth. Lots of citations to research would be included.

All these additions would be good. I wonder if it would make the article more readable to separate it into two parallel sections. One section about children and another about adults. If that were done, the article might be structured something like the following:

1. Introduction. This section would have material common to both areas.

2. Children. This section would then have sub-sections about the Strange Situation and other measures, Attachment styles, Treatment, Recommended Readings, See also, References, External links.

3. Adults. This section would then have similiar sub-sections and others as appropriate to the subject matter.

In this way those readers interested in children or adults would not have to wade through material not as directly relevant to their interest.

Comments?

Dr. Art 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea. And I agree with putting the developmental sections first because it provides the historical context for what came later in the adult studies (for those reading the whole article). It may be hard to separate references into two sections because of the way the reference tags work, but if we keep the children's material first, all children's references will at least be in the upper half of the references section. Seprarate 'see also' and 'external links' sections would be fine as long we somehow make clear there are separate sections for children and adults. kc62301

Follow up - I hope you're okay with the changes I made to the section headings. Since a child's relationship to a parent is an intimate relationship (not sexually but emotionally), I thought it would help to explicitly mention the word adult. Also, there's some debate about whether adult friends count as attachment relationships, but romantic relationships are generally considered attachment relationships and are generally studied in the adult literature. Hence the word romantic. I'm less certain about the change from "Treatment" to "Attachment and psychotherapy." I considered "Attachment and mental health." I just think that, since the other headings start with the word attachment, it would be a nice alliteration to have this heading start with the word attachment as well. kc62301

Comment on changes. These are very effective and postive. I like your ideas and I certainly support these. DPeterson 17:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stubs for Sections on Adult Attachment

I added some proposed sections for adult attachment. I tried to stub enough information to give an idea of possible content. It's time for comments, suggestions, and changes. Once we arrive at some consensus on organization and content, I will work on expanding the sections. Help is always appreciated. kc62301

Your additions are very good. I was considering adding some information on the Adult Attachment Interview(Main & Hesse) either as a separate section or in one of the existing sections. How would you, and others, feel about that? I will await your comments. Dr. Art 11:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free. The more collaboration we can get on these sections, polishing and refining them over the course of a few drafts, the better they will be in the long run. I'm not attached to the current organization of sections or their possible content (pun intended). Be bold--that's the Wikipedia philosophy. kc62301

I've begun to add material on narrative approaches to measure a child's pattern of attachment and the AAI. If this is ok, I will continue to add material and appropriate references. Dr. Art 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and start adding material and references on the AAI. I will start work on the self-report questionnaires. I hope you don't mind the organizational change I made. It seemed to me the AAI and self-report questionnaires are two valid ways of measuring adult attachment, so they belong as two subsections under the section dealing with measurement. If you don't like that idea, let's talk and find a more satisfying arrangement. Feel free to completely rewrite how the section on measurement begins--including removing the quote from Shaver and Fraley. I was just looking for a way to convey that there are two main approaches, both valid, and both worth getting to know. kc62301

Article Size

Whoops! We are already at 34 KB with this article. Wikipedia likes to keep its articles around the 32-50 KB range. We still have some room, but probably not as much as we think, before getting past 50 KB. The article is divided into main sections that direct readers to the topics that interest them. But are we getting to the point where we could have separate articles for children, adults, and therapy? The article on Attachment Theory could summarize and provide links to articles for attachment between children and caregivers, for attachment between adults, and for attachment in therapy. I don't care one way or the other...keeping it a long article is okay with me, and breaking it into separate articles is okay with me. What do others think?

I suggest that the article only mention measures (AAI, SSP, etc.) and that all the material on measures be put in one article titled something like, Measures of Attachment, or Attachment Realtionship Measures. Then in this article, there could be various links to that other page from citations of the measures and in the Also See section. What do others think?Dr. Art

When I revised the article on Monogamy I ended up breaking it out into several articles. What do you think about the way the article on Monogamy handles pointing readers to related articles? Would something similar work for anything we move to separate articles for attachment theory? Also, just brainstorming here, but could we just make two articles, one for children's attachment and one for adult attachment, with the Attachment theory page pointing readers to those two articles? The children's attachment article could maintain the section on therapy, too, since I haven't seen too much about therapy and attachment in adults. Again, just putting out some ideas for consideration. I'm open to alternatives. kc62301

I don't feel comfortable breaking up this article without greater consensus on if and how it should be done. Maybe we should complete the current revisions and then see what we think. (The idea of an article devoted measurement is still a possibility.) kc62301

The graph is wrong

The four-square illustration has the legend (Positive and Negative) across the top reversed.

Good catch. I'll correct the graph tonight (my graphics software is on my home pc). Until then I removed it. kc62301

Fixed. kc62301

Limit subheadings for adult attachment

As long as we stick with one article, I think we should limit the subheadings for adult attachment in the contents box. Too many headings is information overload for readers. Plus, the number of subheadings for adult attachment could give readers the false impression that more work has been done in adult attachment than in child attachment. So I designed some of the subheadings for adult attachment to not to show up in the contents box. If anyone wants to "clean" the article with standard Wiki formatting, please consider leaving these subheadings alone or using a standard Wiki subheading that does not show up in the contents box. kc62301

Proposal for Multiple Articles

The Attachment theory article is now about twice the preferred size of Wikipedia articles. Please check out User:Kc62301/Attachment Draft to see my proposal for breaking the article into multiple related articles.
The Attachment theory article briefly introduces Attachment theory. It also contains sections with summaries and links for each of the related articles.
The material on attachment measures was broken out into a new article.
The Attachment disorder article was added to the list of related articles. The Reactive attachment disorder article needs to be considered, possibly by folding it into the Attachment disorder article.

So what do people think? kc62301

I like most of what you propose.

I think a brief article on Attachment Theory to intorduce it as you've written is good. I would only add that there should be a section on Theory in Practice that can then link to related articles: perhaps one about the use of attachment theory in the treatment of children and adults as well as links to specific approaches for which there are already pages.
Measures article looks very good to me.

MarkWood 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the new changes proposed by kc62301 that take into account the previous suggestions. Dr. Art 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks very good to me. DPeterson 02:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion After June 29th Revision

Released June 29, 2006

After getting a few positive comments, I decided to exercise the Wikipedia philosophy of being bold. I split the material on attachment theory into multiple articles.
It's my hope this will help readers more easily find material they are looking for, and help contributers integrate new articles into the existing Wikipedia articles.
I'm a big fan of the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I expect and welcome changes to the revisions I've made. Please feel free to be bold...I did. :-) kc62301

I like what you have done. This is excellent! Thanks for taking the lead on this. I like the remaining references to important sections and then links for more detail. MarkWood 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an interest in attachment and have been watching this and other pages for a while. I often browse Wiki. I really like what you have done. The content is much more accessible. I am adding a reference, if that is ok. JonesRD 16:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added to and altered some of the existing content, which I felt was incomplete. I have not yet added all the references I used, but will do so. Considering the existence of another topic, Reactive Attachment Disorder, I don't see any need for the inlusion of so much material about treatment, but i have not deleted it. Attachment is a very confusing subject for the average reader and needs to be handled carefully, especially with respect to definitions. I would like to call to your attention the following highly relevant statement: "If our careless, underspecified choice of words inadvertently does damage to future generations of children, we cannot turn with innocent outrage to the judge and say, 'But your honor, I didn't realize the word was loaded." (Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff-Smith, Parisi,& Plunkett(1998), Rethinking innateness. MIT Press, p. 391). There are some highly loaded words used in discussion of attachment, and we need to clarify them.Jean Mercer 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit to introduction

It's kind of a toss-up to me. On the one hand, a short intro gets readers to the contents box quicker, which I like. On the other hand, I found the historical information interesting to read, as I tend to be wrapped up in recent studies. Maybe the historical information could go into the article on attacment in children? Or maybe a short article could be written on the historical precursors and origins of attachment theory (and integrated with the other articles on this page)? Anybody have other ideas? kc62301

I prefer the short intro as it reads now. This is a very complex area and the new format of very short introductory/summary paragraphs and the links to the detailed article works really well. I think the historical information and all those details would best be written as a separate article. So there would be a link in the intorduction to the historical section, just like there is for measures, and other areas. DPeterson 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the article does not make sense if attachment is defined only in terms of proximity and separation. For one thing, the focus on toddler models leads directly to the age regression techniques specifically rejected by the APSAC task force report. In order to show how psychotherapy could alter attachment status, a broader definition of attachment is required, and the process needs to be examined developmentally. Bowlby's discussion of the development of the internal working model goes far beyond the definition given here-- see Everett Waters' comments on this. This is why both clinicians and developmentalists need to contribute to these discussions. Jean Mercer 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea of the Attachment theory page is to serve as a kind of mini-portal to direct readers to other, relevant articles. Everything on the page is geared towards brief descriptions to point readers in the right direction. It should be possible for us to come up with an improved definition of attachment that makes reference to working models and still keeps the intro short. I think your other ideas could be included in the relevant articles. The concept of working models is, for example, discussed in the article on Attachment in adults. kc62301

I agree that the page as structured is fine and should not be changed. RalphLender 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page reads very well. JohnsonRon 16:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical issues

A developmental perspective on adult working models can be controversial depending on the time frame of development to which you refer. One has to take a developmental perspective in the sense that all working models are built upon experience (development = learning). But whether the working models developed in childhood continue into adult attachment remains less clear, as attachment styles have been shown to be only moderately stable and attachment styles can vary across relationships. Some have argued that attachment styles, and hence the underlying working models, are relationship variables rather than personality characteristics. It is possible to study adult attachment styles and working models as relationship variables and never refer to attachment history in childhood. The notion that one has to take a developmental perspective that associates working models in childhood with working models in adults remains an ongoing debate. kc62301

I believe the research of Mary Main et. al. has shown a high degree of stability of state of mind with respect to attachment fron infancy into adolescence. Further more, measures taken with the Adult Attachment Interview shows a high degree of stability over time and across relationships. DPeterson^talk 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A good resource and reference is The Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by J. Cassidy & P. Shaver, Guilford Press, NY 1999.MarkWood 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What about EFT?

Is emotionally focused therapy for couples an example of a therapy based on attachment theory?

Yes, if you read the material, it is based on attachment theory. RalphLender^talk 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Attachment theory

I gave this cat a quick start; it probably needs to have many more pages added to it, if anyone wants to help. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 11:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help...but how do I add articles to the category? For example, I'd probably add Harlow and Rutter as two additonal prom. theorists. RalphLender^talk 13:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just go (1) to whatever article you feel falls under the category of "attachment theory"; (2) click the edit button for that article; (3) paste the following code Category:Attachment theory (but without the first colon ":" to the left of the word Category) at the bottom of the article where the other "category" codes are. Thanks for the help: --Sadi Carnot 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I just want to advice you to new pictures in the german wiki: de:Bindungstheorie. 87.78.94.146 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. Fainites ^barley 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DDP

I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. (Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way.) A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of ArbCom it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, User:DPeterson, User:RalphLender, User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, the latter four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten.Fainites ^barley 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - all 5 are now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of DPeterson, and DPeterson has been banned for 1 year by ArbCom.[2] Fainites ^barley 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 - User:AWeidman, AKA Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk and Dr Art has now also been indef. banned for breach of the ban on his sockpuppet DPeterson.Fainites ^barley 16:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical background

Some additions that are needed: Recognition of S. Freud's and Anna Freud's contributions,connection with ethological concept of imprinting. In my opinion, the Harlow material needs to be toned down; Spitz discussion added. Jean Mercer 00:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Additions and subtractions

This article gives the impression that toddler attachment behavior continues practically until adulthood. I started commentary on developmental changes in the internal working model of social relationships (a concept which I think has not been mentioned) and will be going on with this. I also added some historical sources. Meanwhile, there is a lot of repeated material that needs deletion.Jean Mercer 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless it will make the article too long, i'd like to add some of Everett Waters' comments on further development of attachment during preschool and school age. Also, there's a very useful paper on methods of assessing attachment in older toddlers, in the most recent Infant Mental Health Journal-- this applies to children past the Strange Situation age. Does that belong here, or is there still an Attachment Measures article?Jean Mercer 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul!

I found this article rambling and redundant, and took some time to do a complete overhaul. I tried my best to preserve content, except where I felt said content really belonged in another article. My main goals were to shorten the intro to give the reader a concise overview before diving in, separate theory from history to allow a layperson coming to this article to read about attachment without get mired in names and experimental techniques, and to remove redundant content. I think the article reads better now, but I would love to hear any feedback y'all may have. Steve carlson 05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing that is much needed is material linking the internal working model to Theory of Mind. I also want to add material about the "natural history" of attachment behavior as it alters with development. Do you have a plan that you're trying to follow, Steve carlson? It might be more efficient to put one together.Jean Mercer 15:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that there is much overlap between this article and "Attachment in children". In fact, a good deal of what people (including me) have put here is not strictly speaking attachment THEORY, or even the history of attachment theory, but instead is descriptive work based on the theory. How best to handle these issues?Jean Mercer 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I find the attachment in children article fairly redundant as well. Might be worth considering merging the two, since it is almost impossible to talk about attachment without talking about attachment in children. I don't really have a longterm plan for this article, Jean Mercer, apart from what I outlined above. My main goal is to separate information/theory from history so a reader can consume one without the other. Any additional theoretical ramifications should be woven into existing sections, or if they are meaty enough, their own sections (subsections under "Attachment Basics" or "Attachment in Clinical Practice"). Steve carlson 23:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis template?

This article has the psychoanalysis template which gives it that nice sidebar, but I think that attachment theory is somewhat tangential to psychoanalysis (even if it does have its roots in object-relations). I could see a developmental psychology template or even an attachment theory one, if such things exist or someone has the intiative to create them.... Steve carlson 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I don't see the value of the psychoanalysis sidebar. However, a list of typical events in the development of attachment would be helpful for many readers.Jean Mercer 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition

I think a more operational definition of attachment is needed here. In addition, a good definition will include the idea that attachment behaviors and emotions change with age, so that adults are not usually bound in space and time to their own parents. Jean Mercer 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't really like the definitions in the current introduction, although I think that the intro is the correct place for such a definition. Steve carlson 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a new definition, as well as a much more elaborate take on the theory itself. I don't think that the attachment categories should actually be considered part of attachment theory-- thy are more an aspect of attachment measures, which are in turn part of attachment behavior, maybe?

I want to make some additions to the history soon. More about ethology needs to be said, and Kenneth Craik should be mentioned as the creator of the internal working model concept.

Comments from anyone? I'll be back to fix the citation, i'm not leaving it for someone to pick up after me.Jean Mercer 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! Too late :) Fainites ^barley 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, guilt.Jean Mercer 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, given the allegations, is it gilt? Fainites ^barley 22:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean alaggations? Jean Mercer 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To most people 'attachment theory' means Bowlby and children and that's what they're looking for. Should there in fact be two articles - one for attachment in children, as per Bowlby and successors, and one for general attachment ? I know there is in fact an artcle called [attachment in children], but should a bigger effort be made to edit the two together to get a better balance? Fainites ^barley 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What I figure: one piece on attachment theory (attachment behavior is not theory, the theory is the connections between the observable behaviors), with discussion of the historical background to be included, AND one piece on attachment behaviors, ways to measure them, natural history and description of developmental change (adults too), evidence about cross-cultual differences. Then a third piece on attachment disorders, and at last cram the attachment therapy piece into the existing article about Child Psychotherapy.

I don't claim this is the only rational organization, but it's a possibility. I'm just trying to find ways to chop this material into manageable and meaningful sections.

Could there be a common introductory paragraph for each article, noting the meaning of the term attachment and which article will deal with each subtopic?Jean Mercer 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think about this from the perspective of the different readers that come to this set of articles. I think that there is the layperson perspective, likely but not necessarily a parent or caregiver, that is coming to this article to understand attachment styles and behaviors and get some actional information. A lay discussion of attachment in adults would belong here, too. There should be one article addressing that need - I propose that this would be the "Attachment" article. Then there is the psychology student perspective, requiring the theoretical discussion (Tenets + Basics), experimental history and a brief discussion of clinical issues - I think this should be the "Attachment Theory" article. Finally, there is the clinical perspective, requiring a brief rehash of the theory and history (with links to the student article for more detail if needed) and much more detail on measures/assessment methods, disorders and therapies - not sure what to call this one (maybe "Attachment (Clinical Psychology)". Nuke the Attachment in adults and Attachment measures articles and incorporate their content into these articles as they fit the framework. Steve carlson 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, keep Attachment in adults, we've got a lot of content there. Steve carlson 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the new intro, BTW. Nicely covers the essentials of this topic. Steve carlson 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you-- do you really mean you want to keep Attachment in adults as a separate article? How about a summary as part of the "Attachment" article , as you've called it? Jean Mercer 12:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tenets

Hey Jean Mercer - gotta ask: noticed you wrote the book that the tenets are quoted from. Can you provide another source for these? They seem really plausible to me and I'm sure you can find support for each and every one of them in other texts, but citing oneself is a violation of the NOR policy. Sorry to have to bust your chops on that one, but... Steve carlson 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite right actually Steve. See [3][4] JeanMercer can cite her own publication provided it's within the rules for notability and publication etc. Probably best not to, or not to too often, but not a breach. Fainites ^barley 06:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I can provide other sources, but honestly I don't understand this. It's not actually a breach of the rules-- so is it considered bad manners or what?It was the easiest thing to do, and probably the easiest source for the general reader to find, so that's why I did it.Jean Mercer 12:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Steve c., I just want to note that the tenets are not quoted from my book. If they were, I would have used quotation marks or block indentation and provided page numbers. However, the book provides material discussing each of these points. By the way, this is another point i don't understand about Wiki-- in print publication, it would be a serious mistake to use direct quotes without indicating that you're doing it, yet that seems to be done here.Can anyone clarify for me? Jean Mercer 12:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Which bits are quotes? They do need to be properly attributed otherwise its plagiarism. As for the other, I suppose if every piece of this article was supported by a ref to JeanMercer it would look like COI but there's nothing wrong in citing ones own publications provided they fulfil the criteria. Fainites ^barley 16:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant "here" as in "on Wikipedia", not necessarily in this article, although some of the material in this article seems very familiar in wording. On the other hand, when dozens of people describe attachment styles dozens of times, chances are that there will be some repetition.Jean Mercer 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, not a breach of the COI policy, but it still makes me kind of uncomfortable - a bit close to self-promotion. Secondary sources would make me feel better. And about the quotes, I realize that you didn't quote directly (I used that word too loosely), but if there are chunks of text on Wiki that are lifted word-for-word from other publications, they should be in quotes and cited appropritately. Steve carlson 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't like me to cite only my publication, or you don't like me to cite my publication at all? Anyway, I think you mean primary sources-- my work is the secondary source, right? Or is it that I should quote other people who have quoted me?

As for me, I think having a variety of sources is probably a good idea, but I don't see why I shouldn't cite my own work, when someone else could cite it.Jean Mercer 23:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I think the intro ought to mention that attachment is basically an evolutionary theory. That says an awful lot about it and once you know that, all the rest of it falls into place. Fainites ^barley 08:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Put it in if you think it's a good idea-- I'm just concerned about implying that attachment behavior and emotions lack plasticity (are "instinctive"), whereas in fact they are highly plastic early on and some plasticity remains later. I'm not sure that it all does fall into place once you know it's evolutionary, because there are several different ways the behavior could be shaped. Jean Mercer 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "evolutionary" necessarily implies lack of plasticity in the way "instinctive" does. It's more like being hardwired for something - but then of course you need the software. Good history bits by the way. Fainites ^barley 07:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that these terms are loaded, and we need to spell out our meaning precisely, or have people assume meanings we didn't intend. That's why I put "instinctive" in quotation marks,and used it to mean a lack of plasticity, even though modern technical use of the term admits plasticity. Anyway, the original point was about whether evolution was the biggest piece of the puzzle, and I'm suggesting that it's co-equal with cybernetics and with ethology. Attachment theory doesn't follow from the concept of evolution alone. In fact, you could have the entire theory without ever referring to adaptiveness-- it just hangs together better with that concept. Jean Mercer 11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, the critical period concept comes out of ethology, not out of evolutionary theory, and on the face of it it's actually non-adaptive-- emotional development would be better guaranteed if attachment could equally easily occur at any age.Jean Mercer 11:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if, on the attachment disorder page, it should say 'attachment in infants is an evolutionary theory'. Fainites ^barley 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Do i understand your question? Are you asking whether attachment in infants has evident unlearned and adaptive characteristics, but older people's social behavior has fewer of these?

I don't see anything wrong with saying that attachment theory (in general) is an evolutionary theory, rather than limiting this to the infant period. For one thing, attachment in infants is not a theory, and attachment theory deals with attachment during many life periods, so if it's an evolutionary theory it has to be one for all ages, not just with respect to the infant period. In any case, although I don't think Bowlby talked much about this, preference for familiar people, maintaining proximity to familiar people, caring for and soliciting care from familiar people, would all (on balance) be adaptive behaviors with survival value for the group, no matter what the individual's age. (Remember the Ik!)However, if you want to say that some infant behavior shows fixed action patterns of a type whose genetic control is easy to envision, and that this is not so true about older people's attachment behavior, there might be some truth to that. It seems to me that at some point, as we look at older people, we have to go from looking at evolutionary aspects of attachment to looking at evolution of altruism, which seems pretty complicated for what we're trying to do.Jean Mercer 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh way too complicated. I was thinking about it from the point of view of readers who've heard of attachment but mix it up with affection, 'bonding', notions of maternal love etc. When people think of Bowlby, they think of infants. The issue which keeps coming up is, do we expand 'attachment in children' and make this article more of a portal, or do we merge the two? I see Steve favours keeping 'attachment in adults' a separate article aswell.89.248.131.4 11:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm--to consider separate articles on attachment in children and in adults, first: on the one hand there are different attachment behaviors, thoughts, and emotions in children than there are in adults, so separate articles make sense. On the other hand, the big problem is that most of what is known about children belongs to the infant-toddler-preschooler periods, with less understood about events in schoolchildren and young adolescents. This means that the links between early childhood and adulthood attachment situations are hard to present, and I think they become all the harder if we make no attempt at connection and just divide the two periods into separate articles. Also, the topic of attachment in adulthood should include "bonding" (for want of a better term), which brings us around full circle to conditions that help establish attachment. Discussion of that full circle would be easier in a single article than by referring back and forth between two. Also, work on intergenerational transmission of attachment status should certainly be included, and that almost requires that all life periods be discussed together. So I would suggest that the "natural history" of attachment should be discussed in a single article.

Now, as for the connection with theory: Attachment theory is really a separate topic from attachment behaviors etc. Like any theory, attachment theory is based on a priori assumptions that may be congruent with observed behavior but cannot be tested further than that. You can describe attachment behavior, beliefs, and emotions without referring at all to attachment theory. And you can describe and discuss attachment theory as a mode of thought connected with other ideas of mid-twentieth century, without a lot of concern with observed behavior (e.g., cross-cultural differences), except for a very few basic points.

I vote for 1) an attachment therapy article, and 2) a single article describing observable attachment-related behaviors from birth on.Jean Mercer 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really mean attachment therapy or did you mean attachment theory? Fainites ^barley 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh good heavens, how could i do that! Yes, of course I mean attachment THEORY. Theory, theory, theory.Jean Mercer 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Verschueren

I shifted this study here from the RAD page as its not really about RAD but ought to go somewhere. Fainites ^barley 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Drive theory??

Could you explain why you call it a drive theory, Josephschwartz? Are you suggesting an operant conditioning model, like Gewirtz did? That seems to be at odds with the ethological foundation. I can see that you could argue for a Leehrlaufreaktion (I forget how many Es there are), but that's not the same as drive. Jean Mercer 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at what you wrote, I would guess that you mean a fixed action pattern (like an etepimeletic behavior) rather than a drive as the term is usually used-- unless you're using the term in the old Freudian way, which i guess you could be. But if that's the case, this part should be edited to use the vocabulary that most readers will bring to the article.Jean Mercer 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've altered it, pending discussion, in order to remove reference to a particular form of psychotherapy. On the drive point - doesn't this rather miss out the evolutionary/ethological aspect? isn't this what Bowlby and psychoanalysts argued about? Fainites ^barley 10:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re 'drive theory' - the chapter quoted for this in the article actually says (p576) "These ideas, and specifically Bowlby's rejection of drive theory, were to lead to his dramatic breach with the psychoanalytic establishment." The chapter blames both sides behaviour for the ongoing breach and points out that it is only comparatively recently that psychoanalysis has embraced his ideas. Cassidy's introduction explains how Bowlby's dissatisfaction with drive theory explanations led him to the fields of evolutionary biology, ethology, developmental psychology, cognitive science and control systems. Fainites ^barley 10:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is why I asked JS to explain why he was using this term-- actually there are some drive concepts in ethology too, but not in the usual sense of "need", more in the sense of intrinsic motivation that can spill over in unusual ways in response to releasers. But that's not an ordinary use of the term "drive theory."Jean Mercer 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here is heavily slanted towrads experiemntal psychology and the use of attachment theory in dvelopmental psycholgy. That's fine. But clinicians are far more rough and ready in their use of theory. In the case of drive theory, actually Bowlby himself called attachment theory a new kind of drive theory - a drive towards attachment. Yes of course he was against Freud's original drive theory as the human being being pleasure seeking. But he couched attachment as a drive because in a way it is. Without human contact the human infant arguably doesn't become human as in the case of wild children. But as I said clinical language is loose with multiple ways to express the same thing. For example Fairbairn spoke of the humna being not as pleasure seeking but as object seeking. He meant of course that human beings seek human relationships without which they cannot develop. i think it is an open question about whether there is a drive for relationhsips. But there is overwhelming evidence(the Rumanian children are a recent example) where the absence of human relationships can actually cause infants to die as in failure to thrive. Joe Schwartz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephschwartz (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If we think about from the point of view of the mythical wiki reader - someone who is reasonably intelligent and well educated but has no prior knowledge of the subject - does this help? I suspect the average reader - if they knew of drive theory at all, would know of it in the Freudian sense. It seems to me that this article could do with a section explaining attachment theory's relationship to psychoanalysis. I'm not sure saying its a drive theory in the intro clarifies anything if its an ambiguous and controversial term because Bowlby was specifically rejecting the classic form of it. Suppose we take 'this is a drive theory' out of the intro, but draft a section on the relationship with Psycho-a ? In fact, there may even be a whole article on that point. Fainites ^barley 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way Josephschwartz - put 4 of these things ~ after what you've written and wiki automatically adds your name and date and everything. Fainites ^barley 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that using the term "drive" (Trieb, yes?) as you do implies that there is a motivating energy, and that that motivation is related to survival in some way. But that's not the same as the term "drive" used to mean motivation to seek opportunities for drive reduction (e.g., hunger, thirst) and to learn associations based on drive reduction. That's why i asked if you meant Gewirtz' learning analysis of attachment behavior.

The issue I'm trying to bring up here is not a matter of deciding how things "really" are, but instead one of using language that conveys what we mean. Some readers will understand "drive" in the Gewirtz fashion and may even have read that work. Others won't. But we need to state things so that information is suitably communicated.

I translate your statement about "drive" to mean that attachment has survival value, rather than that a drive is reduced by the results of attachment behavior. (If anything, for a period of time, the drive seems augmented rather than reduced!) Do you agree that that(the first clause) is what's meant? If so, can you state it that way?

Just to comment, I think it's deceptive to say that the Romanian orphans failed to thrive just because of lack of attachment experiences. For the very young, social and caregiving events are so intertwined that NOFT causes cannot really be identified separately. Interactions with caregivers act to organize the young child physiologically at the same time that they start the development of relationships. I'd like this article to handle such issues with care, as they really can't be reduced to soundbites.Jean Mercer 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I altered the statement about drive theory, as Josephschwartz has not commented on reasons for his use of the term.Jean Mercer 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I begin to see that psychoanalysts do use this term in a highly specialized way-- I wish Josephschwartz had been willing to elaborate on this matter.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Attachment-based psychotherapy

Josephschwartz, could you elaborate-- did you mean a specific treatment technique when you said "attachment-based psychotherapy"? Or could you provide a general definition?Jean Mercer 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, it is more or less speciific. Attachment-based psychotherapy is a psychoanalytic form of therapy that uses attachment theory to characterise human interpersonal relationships in the outer world and uses aspects of psychoanalysis to characterise how these relationships get represented(internalised) in the human inner world. The therapy makes very explicit use of the psychoanalytic ideas on transference and countertransference - frequently called re-enactments - as they get expressed in the relationship between therapist and client. As opposed to classical psychoanalysis which is based on a one person psychology where the therspist ideally is meant to be a blank screeen just reflecting the client back to themselves, attachment-based pschotherapy is a two person intersubjective psychology where it is the relationship between therapist and client that gets analysed and talked. Bowlby after all was a psychoanalyst who grew dissatisfied with classical drive theory as having little to do with how the human being actually needs relationships to develop psychologically. joe schwartz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephschwartz (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So, you're talking about an intervention for adults, primarily? Just to clarify, when I say "attachment-based therapy" I would usually be talking about treatments for children. I think we need to make sure terms are defined, or the reader is going to be quite confused.Jean Mercer 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag

How come this article is tagged as psychoanalysis now?Jean Mercer 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The category at the bottom of the page has been there for over a year. The fancy psychoanalysis box was added in May 2007 by psyguy. I don't think he made any other edits. [5] Do you think attachment should a) not be in the psychoanalysis category and b) should have a category of its own? We could make one of those boxes with a piccy. Fainites ^barley 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just didn't remember the box being so fancy-- I guess I'm a gatherer and look just at what I'm looking for.

The recent discussion of Psychoanalysis and attachment theory makes me think the tag is not exactly Italic texta propos. If it's to be tagged this way, seems like there should be some discussion of what the two do and do not have to do with each other, which could get complicated.Jean Mercer 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Snap! see `above. Fainites ^barley 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Other critical approaches are embedded in the rest of the article. Does someone want to move them to this section? I think it's a stretch to name Harris as the principal critic, although she's certainly the most popularized commentator on infant determinism. Gewirtz should also be mentioned here, and i suppose also any discussions that stress the interaction of temperament with attachment history.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be a criticism section. I agree with you about the idea of a 'principal' critic - unless there is a suitable source that says she is the principal critic. I'm sure Kingsley Miller can help with a criticism section as he has some points to make on maternal deprivation. Fainites ^barley 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that basing one's idea that Harris is the / a principle critic of attachment theory on one student's essay is a sound idea. The link give to Erin Lee's article is to an unpublished, non peer reviewed (and, frankly, quite badly written) essay that really has no place as the basis for what should be scientific claims. Harris is an interesting critic of attachment theory but the citations surely should be to her books (e.g. The Nurture Assumption) and perhaps to Pinker's works as well (e.g. The Blank Slate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.230.230 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 198.232 etc.

I've asked this user to provide a rationale for his or her edits. I don't say they're wrong, just that I'd like to know the evidence basis for the changes.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)