Talk:Attachment theory/Archive 4

Established knowledge or "just" a theory

The normal "mode" in Wikipedia 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

same for the third paragraph in the lead on ainsworth. JoeSmack ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

114,000 kb. Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 21:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pruned.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I put a big detailed chunk in Attachment in children and pruned a bit.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the bit about stability of classifications.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By "neat" I mean short and pithy and won't add too many kilobytes.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

How's the dead PC going Joe? Burned out completely or recovering?Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to stop all that scrolling

You can't do this on a FAC page.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 21:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for nudging me, i'm going through it again now... JoeSmack ^Talk 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,[59] 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Props for continuing to shave this down, I've noticed the long term effort! JoeSmack ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^Talk 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Like wooden legs.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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,[10] for the purpose of achieving security, survival and, ultimately, genetic replication.[11] 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

OK.Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs

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

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

All done!!! Fainites ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

Resolved issues

The third paragraph does not give any timeline information. Given that this seems to be primarily a historical paragraph, it should give some years. "Theorists extended attachment theory to adults." This is a very terse sentence, which is made worse by the fact that it is not expanded upon. Which theorists? When? Why? At least one of these questions should be answered to make the sentence more substantial. "responses to the care needs of infants or sick or elderly adults." Awkwardly repetitive use of "or". I suggest changing the first "or" to "and" or "as well as". Alternatively, consider rewriting to "responses to the care needs of infants or the sick and elderly." Done.Fainites barleyscribs 12:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC) "Within attachment theory, attachment means a bond or tie between an individual and an attachment figure (usually a caregiver)." It is important to keep in mind that not every user will have read the lead. With that in mind, I suggest specifying that attachment theory refers not to physical bonds but to emotional ones. Or psychological. Or whatever adjective you think works best. OK. Fainites barleyscribs 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC) "Such bonds may be reciprocal and mutual between two adults, but are based on the need for safety, security and protection between a child and a caregiver." First off, I believe "reciprocal" and "mutual" are redundant terms. Second, the use of "but" seems to be setting up a contrast between adult bonds and child bonds, but I don't understand how reciprocity and security are mutually exclusive. Suggest rewriting. Well it's been rewritten about 6 times already so once more won't hurt!Fainites barleyscribs 21:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC) "towards whom they direct attachment behaviour (proximity seeking)." I don't think the parenthetical comment is necessary here considering that, two paragraphs later, there is an entire subsection dedicated to explaining what "attachment behaviour" is. This wa sspecifically added at the request of another reviewer. (Rock - Hard Place)Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "The quality of the social engagement appears to be more influential than amount of time spent." First off, this should be followed by a citation. Second, "appears to be" is a silly phrase. If it's speculative, whose opinion is it? If it is backed by research but is not entirely definitive, how about adding "research shows"? Agree. Will remove. It's the kind of phrase that's common in journal articles. On the citation, everything is cited. I don't want to get into citing every sentence when a paragraph or section is cited but I'll have a look and see if more little superscript numbers are required here.Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) The pasage is cited.Fainites barleyscribs 22:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "anybody who behaves in a "mothering" way over a consistent period." The phrase "consistent period" really doesn't mean anything (except, perhaps, to women over the age of 12). Suggest replacing with "anybody who consistently behaves in a "mothering" way." or "anybody who behaves in a "mothering" way over a prolonged period." or both. I agree. The "consistency" should be the behaviour. Will do.Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "Within attachment theory this means a set of behaviours that involves engaging in lively social interaction with the infant and responding readily to signals and approaches" What does "approaches" mean in this context? Is it a specific type of interaction, or does it simply refer to when the infant approaches the caregiver? Yep. Approaches by the infant.Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "Almost from the first," As a native American English speaker, I have never heard this expression. Oh. Well it is written in BE. Isn't the meaning obvious? I could say "almost from the outset"? Would that be "get-go" in AE? Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, I was able to figure out what it meant. However, it is still idiomatic, which may present problems for non-native readers. Also, it isn't really clear what the expression is referring to to. The outset of... life? Perhaps "Even at a very young age" or "Even within the first # years of life" would be better. It's a phrase Bowlby used but if it's unfamiliar to american readers I'll change it.Fainites barleyscribs 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "Later criticism of attachment theory has come from a variety of disciplines." This sentence seems to be out of place considering that the sentences before and after it both discuss empirical research. Also, as this sentence is currently written, it doesn't really provide any information; it raises more questions than it answers. What were these criticisms and from whom did they originate? If you don't see fit to expand upon this, I would suggest removing it entirely to solve both problems. There are too many different areas of criticism to enumerate them in the lead. The various criticisms are placed throughout the article at appropriate points. The lead used to say Past criticism came particularly from within psychoanalysis, and from ethologists in the 1970s. More recent criticisms relate to genetic factors, temperament, the complexity of social relationships within family settings,[6] and the limitations of discrete patterns for classifications. This was objected to. It does not seem appropriate however not to mention at all in the lead that there have been criticisms.Fainites barleyscribs 21:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Okay then, how about condensing it to a short list? Something like: "Later criticism of attachment theory has come from a variety of disciplines, including ethology and psychoanalysis." Well I'm personally happy with a short list. I'll fiddle with it. Psycoanalysis was early, then ethology, then all the temperament stuff. A lot of the really vicious criticism came with Maternal Deprivation. Strange as it may now seem a lot of psychologists etc thought that the very idea that a child needed a consistent loving relationship with at least one carer for normal emotional and social development was an absolutely outrageous, ridiculous idea.Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) OK. Tried that. Fainites barleyscribs 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC) "Bowlby distinguished between alarm and anxiety" Why does it matter what the difference is between alarm and anxiety? The two terms being used in the previous sentences were "distress" and "anxiety". "Alarm" is at the approach of a tiger. Anxiety is the fear of being too far from the attachment figure.Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I understand the distinction between the two terms. I don't understand why the article makes a point of differentiating them before "alarm" is even used. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC) The whole passage reads The set-goal of the attachment behavioural system is maintaining a bond with an accessible and available attachment figure.[15] If the figure is unavailable or unresponsive, separation distress occurs. The anticipation of such an occurrence arouses separation anxiety. Bowlby distinguished between alarm and anxiety: "alarm" was the term for activation of the attachment behavioural system caused by fear of danger, while "anxiety" was the fear of being cut off from the attachment figure (caregiver). A lot of what this section is doing is explaining what is meant by attachment and the various terms used within attachment theory. Fainites barleyscribs 22:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Again, it seems that it isn't clear what my concern is. The passage uses two new terms in context: separation distress and separation anxiety. It then goes on to compare two terms: anxiety and alarm. Although "anxiety" is now well-defined, "alarm" has only been used comparatively and "distress" has had no comparison at all. As I was reading, I instinctively expected a comparison between "anxiety" and "distress", and I was confused when I read on. I showed this passage (and resulting discussion) to User:Ylime715, and she had the same reaction. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Alarm is distinguished from anxiety. I'll try rewording and putting it in a separate paragraph.Fainites barleyscribs 11:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I've reworded and rearranged to explain the different terms.Fainites barleyscribs 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC) "These figures are arranged in hierarchical order with the "principal attachment figure" at the top" And what might this hierarchy be? It goes up and down. In order. The attachment figures within it are either over or under each other. Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Erm, okay. Allow me to clarify: I find it a tad odd that this hierarchy is mentioned in the article but not explained. What are the other members of the hierarchy? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC) The other members of the hierarchy are other attachment figures. I'll check to see if this can be made clearer.Fainites barleyscribs 22:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The passage reads many children have more than one figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour (proximity seeking). These figures are arranged in hierarchical order with the "principal attachment figure" at the top.[14] The set-goal of the attachment behavioural system is maintaining a bond with an accessible and available attachment figure. Does this not make it sufficiently clear that the members of the hierarchy are attachment figures? It's not possible to say who they are. For example, it can't be assumed mother is 1 and father s 2 or anything like that.Fainites barleyscribs 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Perhaps it isn't clear what I'm asking. The phrasing suggests that there exists somewhere a written hierarchy, at the top of which lies "principal attachment figure", which makes me wonder "What are the names of the other members of this hierarchy?" Alternatively, the phrasing could be interepreted to mean that the child in question is the one who creates this hierarchy. I doubt most children even know what "hierarchy" means, nor would they be able to arrange one. Even so, it again begs the question "What are the names of the other members of this hierarchy?" Well I can add that they attachment figures to whom the child seeks proximity in order of preference but I can't name them. An infant arranges them in hierarchical order in his own mind but I would assume you are right that he does not consciously use the word hierarchy when doing so. Doing so has survival advantages because in situations of alarm the child does not have to think who to turn to. It just goes.Fainites barleyscribs 11:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Rereading the passage, I think some of my confusion comes from the fact that "principal attachment figure" is set off in quotations even though it has already been used in this section. I think if you instead set off the earliest use of the phrase, it would help to clarify what exactly this "hierarchy" is. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Yeah you're right. I've removed the scare quotes and it looks better. Fainites barleyscribs 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Definitely better. I think it would also help to change "in hierarchical order" to "hierarchically". Whaddya think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC) What I do in situations like that is change it and then "casually glance" at it a few hours later to see how it strikes me. F. "Pre-attachment behaviours occur in the first six months." I suggest expanding "six months" to "six months of life" or some such. Without this addition, this sentence may be confusing for readers who jump to Behaviours without reading anything else. OK. F. "Although babies are learning to discriminate between caregivers, these behaviours are directed at anyone in the vicinity." The use of the present progressive tense here gives the impression that some worldwide infant consciousness is collectively learning over time. Suggest rewording. OK. We'll see if the Sock Puppet Infant Terror Squad (SPITS) will permit the change. F. "following and clinging is added to its repertoire." I find the use of "repertoire" to be very odd, as it is a word that, in my experience, is used almost exclusively in the discussion of music. Also, it may not be obvious to all that "it" refers to the child and not to the caregiver. "Many attachment behaviours occur only in threatening or uncomfortable circumstances, such as the approach of an unfamiliar person (stranger wariness)" Why is the phrase "stranger wariness" significant? It is only used one other time in the article. If it's a term used in the literature that the reader should be familiar with, I suggest adding quotes around it. If it's not important (which I suspect it isn't, as there is no article on it), I suggest removing the parenthetical remark. "and it may be impossible to measure the presence of attachment without creating such circumstances" ...so what? Without explaining attempts to measure attachment behavior, this phrase seems insignificant and misplaced. "and if that does not work, cry louder or shout or follow" Suggest rewriting in a more conventional list form to avoid the double "or". "Children also begin to notice others' goals and feelings, planning their actions accordingly" Poor sentence structure makes it unclear who is planning their actions: the children or the others? "a more complex and goal-corrected partnership is formed" what does "goal-corrected" mean? Rearranged so it explains it; After the second year, as the child begins to see the carer as an independent person, a more complex and goal-corrected partnership is formed.[22] Children begin to notice others' goals and feelings and plan their actions accordingly. For example, whereas babies will cry because of pain, two-year-olds will cry to summon their caregiver, and if that does not work, cry louder, shout or follow.[8]. F. Caption: "Insecure attachment patterns can compromise exploration and the achievement of self-confidence. This baby is free to concentrate on his book." It may not be clear to all readers that the baby is free to concentrate on the book because he has a secure attachment patern. Suggest expanding the second sentence to make this clearer. Done. F. "If the caregiver is inaccessible or unresponsive, attachment behaviour is strongly activated" Not sure what this means. I also find the use of "activated" to be a bit odd. Are SPITS members robots? Hard to tell. People who get close to them find themselves overcome with a pink haze and an irresistable urge to say "oochy coochy coochy coo!" Fainites barleyscribs 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Done except that I can't think of another suitable word for "activated". How about "more strongly exhibited" ? Fainites barleyscribs 17:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Or how about "become more noticeable"? Sometimes the problem isn't with the single odd word, but with the phrasing that forces you to use it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) I've gone with the "more strongly exhibited" option - though "displayed" could work. It needs to get across that this is something the infant does. Fainites barleyscribs 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC) "This system, called the internal working model of social relationships," Suggest either placing quotes around "internal working model of social relationships" or simply shortening to "This internal working model of social relationships". "An adult's internal working model continues to develop, helping cope with friendships, marriage and parenthood, all of which involve different behaviours and feelings" As this sentence is written, it implies a certain simultaneity with the infant's development, suggesting that it may be talking specifically about the caregiver. Suggested rewrite: "This internal working model continues to develop through adulthood..." All done.Fainites barleyscribs 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC) "As children move into the school years, most develop a goal-corrected partnership with parents" Is this a direct result of the children going to school? Or does this just happen to coincide with the age at which most children begin school? If it's the first, suggest rewriting the first clause to "As children begin their first few years of school" or some such. If it's the second, I suggest specifying what those ages are to maintain relevance for children who don't go to school. "provided contact—or the possibility of reuniting, if needed—is available" What is the difference between contact and reuniting? I suspect it is determined by physical proximity, but the article should specify. "There will be a decline in attachment behaviours such as clinging and following, with an increase in self-reliance" I suggest avoiding the use of the future tense (per WP:CRYSTALBALL :P). All done now.Fainites barleyscribs 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) "there may be a shift towards mutual co-regulation of secure-base contact" I have no idea what this means. Explanation added. F. "With adolescents, the role of the caregiver is to be available when needed while the adolescent makes sorties into the outside world" The meaning of "caregiver" may be somewhat ambiguous here because the previous sentence discusses both parents and peer adolescents as attachment figures. I assume it refers to "parent", in which case I would simply substitute that word. Also, what is a "sortie"? I know what the word means, but I doubt that most native English speakers would be familiar with it. I'll change caregiver. As for "sortie" - it's in pretty common use in the UK. I'll see if there's an adequate substitute, but I'm surprised you think it's a problem. How about "journey" or "excursion" ? "Trip" sounds too lightweight I think. "Sortie" gives a nice "girding your loins" feel. F. I like "excursion", changed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I quite like "excursion" too although it makes me think of charabancs and the seaside. F. "on infant-parent dyads during the child's first year" "Dyad" is a very unusual word. I suggest either switching to a more familiar, such as "pair", or linking the term. Done. F. "The attachment representations of young children are typically assessed in relation to particular figures." I don't know what this means either. What is an "attachment representation"? This is the only instance of that phrase in the article. Done. F. Better, but now I'm not sure who the particular figures are. Suggest appending the sentence with "such as..." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Done. F. "the procedure reveals what use very young children make of their caregiver as a source of security" It appears as though some words have been misplaced in this sentence, thereby making it difficult to decipher its meaning. By creating stresses designed to activate attachment behaviour, the procedure reveals what use very young children make of their caregiver as a source of security. This is the whole sentence. Which words are misplaced? I could say The procedure reveals what use very young children make of their caregiver as a source of security, by creating stresses designed to activate attachment behaviour. F. Why is the word "use" in the second clause? It does not make sense. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC) They use their caregiver as a source of security. They do so in different ways. The sentence certainly wouldn't make sense if I took it out. It's what yooce not what yews. F. Ohhh! Your pronunciation guide was very helpful, I had been reading it as "what yews". I suspect other readers may also be confused by this simply because there are so many words between "use" and "make". How about "By creating stresses designed to activate attachment behaviour, the procedure reveals how very young children use their caregiver as a source of security." ? OK. F. "Early insecure attachment does not necessarily predict difficulties, but it is a liability for the child, particularly if parental behaviours continue throughout childhood." I would certainly hope that parental behaviours continue throughout childhood! I think there's an adjective missing here, perhaps "... particularly if the poor parental behaviours continue throughout childhood." OK. F. "secure infants are more likely to become more socially competent than their insecure peers" It is syntactically incorrect to have "more" appear twice as it does here. Suggest either: "secure infants are likely to become more socially competent than their insecure peers" or "secure infants are more likely to become socially competent than their insecure peers." OK. F. "Maltreated children are also more likely to become maltreating parents, passing on the disordered relationship pattern." I don't like the use of "passing on" for two reasons. First, it implies a 100% possibility that a maltreating parent will have a disorganized child, which, according to the previous statistics, isn't true; there is still a 15% chance that the child will be secure. Second, the actual phrase "passing on" is often associated with hereditary disorders, which this is not. Suggest rewording. OK. F. "Bowlby believed that the earliest models formed were the most likely to persist because they existed outside consciousness." Does "outside consciousness" mean "subconsciously"? If so, I suggest replacing. If not, I don't know what it means. Like satellite moons, circling in orbit 6 inches from the head? I'll replace with "subconscious". F. "There is some evidence that gender differences in attachment patterns of adaptive significance begin to emerge in middle childhood." What does "adaptive significance" mean? Evolution. Organisms adapt (in the evolutionary sense) to their habitat. I'll see if I can rewrite this bit and the bit below a bit. F. "Insecure attachment and early psychosocial stress indicate environmental risk." What does "environmental risk" mean in this context? Are children being attacked by bears? In the the environment of early adaptation, quite possibly yes. F. Done these. F. "Insecure attachment and early psychosocial stress indicate to the organism (the young human) the presence of environmental risk" Why the parenthetical human? Can be shortened to "Insecure attachment and early psychosocial stress indicate the presence of environmental risk". I added it as I understood you to say that section was obscure but I can just as easily remove it. F. "the most popular being the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised scale" The abstract of the cited article doesn't mention which alternative scale was the most popular; I doubt the article did either. Even if it did, the article is 10 years old, making it a bad source for this statement. I suggest removing the popularity and bit and instead describing who developed the test. OK. I'll find a more up-to-date source. F. I've altered the summary and source. I haven't got into each test as there are so many and a list of titles would be meaningless. The most famous is the AAI. Eventually I may have time to update the Attachment measures article further. F. "The various measures were developed primarily as research tools, for different purposes and address different domains" Grammatically incorrect, so I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Perhaps "The various measures were developed primarily as research tools, for different purposes and to address different domains" or "The various measures were developed primarily as research tools, for different purposes and addressing different domains" OK. The latter is more correct. F. "They tend to suppress their feelings, dealing with rejection by distancing themselves from partners of whom they often have a poor view." This implies that dismissive-avoidants distance themselves from people who hide behind trees. I assume "poor view" actually means "negative opinion", though I'm not really sure how someone can "often" have a negative opinion of someone. What exactly are you trying to convey in this sentence? Often refers to all the many people of this category rather than just one with a rapidly changing view. Opinion is fine though. F. In that case, I suggest moving "often" to earlier in the sentence: "They tend to suppress their feelings, often dealing with rejection by distancing themselves from partners of whom they have a negative opinion." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) The trouble is - that doesn't mean the same thing. I think it works OK now "view" is changed to "opinion" F. "From the late 19th century onward, psychologists and psychiatrists suggested theories about attachment" Has this always been referred to as "attachment", or is that a more recent term? I suspect the latter, in which case I would recommend replacing with "what is now referred to as attachment". Done. F. "This proposed that infants were dependent on adult caregivers but outgrew it" Sentence ends abruptly and does not provide any kind of timeline. Suggest appending with a phrase such as "in early childhood" or an age range. Done. F. "case studies on disturbed and delinquent children, such as those of Goldfarb" Who? Bill Goldfarb - a big reasonably sized name in maternal deprivation. I've added name and dates and redlinked him. F. "The central proposition was influential but highly controversial.[71] At the time there was limited empirical data and no comprehensive theory to account for such a conclusion.[72] Nevertheless, Bowlby's theory sparked considerable interest and controversy..." The first and third sentences are redundant. I suggest removing the first. OK - though influence and interest are not quite the same. Influence in the way children were treated and interest in spawning heaps of research for example. Will rewrite. F. "He formulated the innovative proposition that mechanisms underlying an infant's tie emerged as a result of evolutionary pressure" Tie to what? Or perhaps necktie? Emotional tie to it's caregiver I thought. Could be necktie though. That would also fit with "attached" if you kept hold of the other end. F. "This latter was based on experiments which showed that infant rhesus monkeys appeared to form an affectional bond with soft, cloth surrogate mothers that offered no food compared to wire surrogate mothers that provided a food source but were less pleasant to touch." First, beginning should be either "this" or "the latter", not both. Second, suggest either adding "stronger" before "affectional" or replacing "compared to" to "but not with". As it is currently written, the sentence doesn't make sense. OK. F. Caption: "Each partner in a romantic relationship can display a different attachment style." Unless I'm mistaken, this is not mentioned in the main text. Readers should not be required to read captions to obtain all of the information; I suggest mentioning this somewhere in the main text. At the very least, if this remains the only instance of this claim, it should be followed by a ref. Funnily enough I can't offhand find a source for this even though it is a very basic fact. I'll remove it for now until I can get access to a better source.Fainites barleyscribs 16:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I think this is better. F. "Shortly thereafter he came across the work of Nikolaas Tinbergen and collaborated with Robert Hinde" Who collaborated with Robert Hinde? Is this still referring to Bowlby? I don't see why the work of Tinbergen and the collaboration with Hinde should be mentioned in the same sentence. In fact, I don't see any reason why Tinbergen should be mentioned at all unless it can be made clear that Tinbergen had an influence on Bowlby's work. Done. F.

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 ^barleyscribs 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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