Talk:Attachment theory

Error

Within the section Behaviours, maybe something has been altered, deleted or misplaced, but this is plainly incorrect.

During the second phase (two to six months), the infant increasingly discriminates between familiar and unfamiliar adults, becoming more responsive towards the caregiver; following and clinging are added to the range of behaviours.

The part attached by a semi-colon is erroneous. Infants between two and six months do not "follow" anyone, because they have yet to reach crawling stage. Infants between two and six months have not reached the "clinging" stage. Clinging comes with crawling, at the stage when the child has developed the muscular strength in its arms. Following and clinging occur in the third stage, not the second.

Amandajm (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes something has been removed as it definitely made sense originally! When I have a moment I will look back to see what it was.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Inadvertent change of meaning

Umm...para 3 in this edit changes "Bowlby's original sensitivity period of between six months and two to three years has been modified to a less "all or nothing" approach." to "Bowlby's original sensitivity period of between six months and two to three years has been modified to an "all or nothing" approach." " ....which seems to flip/invert the meaning....unless I am missing something....? Tanya is this what you meant to write here...Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend on changing the meaning of anything on the article. I think it's great article! I was just looking for ways to help. I am sorry if I made mistakes. Please do fix them. :) Tanya ✫♫♥ 15:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Duh! I really had no clue what everyone was talking about, knowing I did nothing wrong on purpose, so I did not mind apologizing at all. Now I finally see what you are all talking about. It took me a while to get the part "to a less" - I just thought it was a typo, and it took me a few reads to see why it is not, but I got it now! Sorry! Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 21:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no worries :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please revert the other "inadvertences" that Fanities is concerned about above. It's these subtle changes that are the most disturbing. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism/Alternate theory section missing

Hello

Looking at this article, which is quite extensive, I was very surprised by the lack of a "Criticism" or "Alternative Theory" part, as is customary for most article which present a scientific theory. is there any reason why there is no reference to the criticisms or alternative to this theory, except that no one found time to write about it of course? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.164.114 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Primary caregiver be merged into Attachment theory. Primary caregiver is an important concept in attachment theory, but what can be written about this that should not be written in attachment theory??? Lova Falk talk 18:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

well, you could add parts about primary caregivers who are not the parents, say nannies and (in the days of slavery) slaves, house maids and such. In some societies a child has a wet nurse and only lives in the home after the wet nurse period is over. See milk kinship. I'm not an expert but I think "attachment" to parents often exists, even when the parents aren't the primary caregivers. e.g. when the child is boarded for most of their childhood. Also primary caregiver status can arise in child custody and guardianship cases legally. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Primary caregiver has lots of meanings and connotations to it, as Mathew mentioned. Not all of these relate to attachment theory. Perhaps adding a section on primary caregiver would suffice in explaining the relationship between the two concepts LiL mIsS pRiNc3sS (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll remove the tags, hoping that one day somebody will add all the meanings and connotations of primary caregiver. (I will not do this myself because I don't know enough about it) Lova Falk talk 12:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved from article

Apologies for the delay in continuing the discussion we were having earlier in the year on this topic. We were at this point:

(...)The edit made the point via pointing to the cross-cultural studies that support the commonality of the pattern of multiple attachment figures and flexibility in regard to both gender and genetic relationship (although the latter was phrased beyond a nuclear family group - we could phrase it differently). A generation of ethnographers have lent support to attachment theory, through the concept of nurture kinship and I think it would be of value to point out how ethnography's findings lend further support to attachment theory. DMSchneider (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The article says Infants form attachments to any consistent caregiver who is sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them. The quality of the social engagement is more influential than the amount of time spent. The biological mother is the usual principal attachment figure, but the role can be taken by anyone who consistently behaves in a "mothering" way over a period of time. In attachment theory, this means a set of behaviours that involves engaging in lively social interaction with the infant and responding readily to signals and approaches. Certainly it does not require any common genes! However, I can see that the following sentence about fathers may give the wrong impression. (That had to be included somewhere due to the number of people who believe Bowlby says it was Mother's only. For more on that issue see the Maternal deprivation talkpages). Rather bthan get involved in ethnographic phrases like nurture kinship, it may be better to find a source that states the obvious (ie no common genes required) and add it. What do you think? Fainites barleyscribs 21:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (...)

With that excerpt from the previous discussion... I agree with Fainites that a more succinct summary of the position regarding diverse attachment figures would be good. The most thorough source for this is probably "Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship" a doctoral monograph from LSE (I'll find a proper reference for it). I think, were it able to be made concisely, it would be very positive to mention the strong cross-disciplinary support from anthropology. Recall that Ainsworth's research in Uganda bridged between attachment theory and anthropology, and that Bowlby consulted anthropological data thoroughly, and was keen to construct the theory in a way that was cross-culturally valid. However, I defer to your judgement on how this cross-disciplinary confirmation should best be noted here. Please share your thoughts. I will come back with that reference.DMSchneider (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the electronically published edition of the source http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.411642. There is also a freely available digital copy (PDF) at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1791365 which is easier to get hold of, and should probably be the one given in the article's refs.

In terms of the edit, given that the sentence (Fainites mentions above) about fathers (i.e. gender) perhaps suggests the wrong emphasis, we could re-write this part to state these three points (gender / single-multiple / genetic-tie-or-not) clearly and unambiguously. There are also, in the Tenets section, passing mentions of the genetic-tie-or-not point (Infants in their first months have no preference for their biological parents over strangers) and the single-multiple point (These figures are arranged hierarchically, with the principal attachment figure at the top), but the relevance of these could be made more explicit: the point that - there is great flexibility of the infant in this regard, and a concomitant variety of patterns that are found across cultures - should definitely be made clear (& give the ref for details / examples). This will avoid the common temptation to essentialize as 'natural' the typical pattern of a narrower range of attachment figures that often form in e.g. western societies, and thus avoid any ethnocentrism. Please give your thoughts, and I will draft an edit.DMSchneider (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In accord with the above, I have now adjusted the article in an appropriate section to include the following sentence - The particular patterns of caregiving arrangements vary greatly across human cultures, and the infant attachment system has the flexibility to adapt to all these patterns - and included a reference to the source mentioned above. I also made a couple of minor edits to the flow of existing sentences to reflect the flexibility regarding gender/number/genetic-tie-or-not point noted above, and guard against any possible suggestion of determinism or ethnocentrism etc. Please jump in with comments, or adjust the edit, if you have ideas on how to further improve the presentation of these points in the article.DMSchneider (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Fainites for brushing up my recent edits to the article. I feel that the way these points are now presented is pretty decent, notwithstanding the possibility for any future improvements to this already excellent page. I will endeavour to point wikilinks back here, in pages on related topics. Keep up the good work.DMSchneider (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Renewed attachment

Renewed attachment ==  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC) 

Hello Fainites, et al! I see good progress is being made with the article. A number of things have been made much clearer--such as referring to "patterns of attachment" and "forming internal working models." I read a significant part of the book you recommended and found that, while that's where the discussion is among a large group of professionals it leaves out some critically important essentials: Leaving out 1) Ethology might seem to simplify things, but then that leaves out evolution 2) Brain development and 3) Empathy are crucial for the development of normal social relationships, etc.

Then I saw that you removed my "inaccurate addition" of Sept. 17--"Relationships later in life are built on this primary [neurological and social] foundation [of infant attachment]." This brief reference connects to what is said in other parts of the article--about forming internal working models and that "The quality of caregiving shapes the development of neurological systems which regulate stress." (see the section after line 175 which can be found in the revision of 15 Sept 2012) and in fact all neurological development. Also, how are you going to extend the theory to attachment in adults(paragraph 5)? And in the section of ethology: Bowlby recognized the parallels between imprinting in birds and attachment in mammals, although they evolved separately, and refers to the "unification of psychoanalytic concepts with those of ethology." Ethology is central to attachment theory and with it evolution.

Therefore the following facts need to be taken into account in discussing attachment, even if they don't need to be discussed in detail. Infant attachment is inseparable from brain development. The human infant's brain triples in volume in the first 5 years--it doubles in volume in just the first year(!)as it records early life experiences.
While infant attachment to the mother is found in all mammals, human infants are born extremely helpless because of an incompletely developed brain. Our large brains could not pass through the reduced size of the birth canal of a bipedal and increased Post-natal brain development is necessary for the learning of social behavior and culture--see also secondary altriciality. (As a comparison, chimpanzee brains double in volume in the first 5 years). So brain and neurological development and attachment go hand-in-hand.
Keep in mind that Darwin didn't have DNA evidence when he wrote his theory of evolution. He only had long and careful direct observation from life, but that sufficed to lay an accurate foundation. Bowlby worked in much the same way with equally accurate results.

Some mammals clearly manifest attachment from birth, such as herd animals that can follow their mother from the first hours. Primate infants can cling effectively within a few days. Other mammals are born blind (canines, felines, rodents) so they are quite helpless for a week or two. But human babies are so helpless they must depend on others to carry them for over 6 months. They therefore can seek proximity only through social behaviors such as crying and cooing--that is, the mother (or other) must seek proximity for them. That IS what Bowlby said. Humans are also the most adaptable of living beings--human babies can adapt to a single mother-or-other or to a large extended family and non-kin caregivers. That degree of variation makes it hard to study.
It's misleading to say that attachment begins at 6 months. Imagine newborn infants left most of the day in isolation except for the care of physical needs. They wouldn't have any social development at all. Some of Harry Harlow's studies of baby rhesus monkeys provide evidence of precisely that.

Instead the separation distress that begins at or after 6 months is in preparation for the child beginning to crawl or walk.  Baby and mother need to keep close during this development.

 Yes, I know this forum is not supposed to discuss this, but if you are going to delete these foundational realities from the article you had better delete Bowlby and indeed the whole article.

Bowlby was writing the initial draft of an understanding of attachment and he was doing it in the face of great opposition from his colleagues. There were many things that he couldn't state as obviously as we would have liked. Also he was quintessentially an interdisciplinary thinker, something much more common 50-100 years ago but which many people today have difficulty following.
When you systematically deleted my contributions two years ago I wondered if I was wrong, or if I was reading another Bowlby. So I reread that first book on Attachment very carefully. One has to read slowly to see where he was hesitating, struggling to find the words, or trying to avoid something that would cause misunderstandings. But yes, he saw the foundations of the bond of attachment beginning to develop from birth. Before you say that I'm wrong again go read the book as carefully as I did. Margaret9mary (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC). 22:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Purpose of Attachment

The behavioral system of Attachment in infancy serves various purposes--protection from predators, yes, but also for social learning. They learn social skills and other behaviors. We have mirror neurons so we can learn from observing others. The mother-or-other primary caregiver provides an external working model with whom the infant interacts and observes as the infant develops their own internal working model.
All mammals are social animals and systems of infant-mother attachment exist among all mammals. And all infant mammals learn through observing and interacting. Humans with their much larger brain have much more to learn of complex cultural behaviors and social interactions.--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Margaret9mary! You seem to know a lot and care strongly about attachment theory. However, you cannot just change sourced text because you think it is wrong, and you cannot add text without a reliable source. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 11:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Re a citation--it can be found in beginning classes of college biology.

Proximity is widely used by adult animals as protection against predators. Fishes swim in schools, birds fly in flocks. Protecting young against predators is one way of increasing genetic survival--it begins early--found even in some reptiles. In ground dwelling birds imprinting is essential for survival. But "mother nature" piggy backs many uses together. Learning from observing others who already know something is common because it's easier than learning by trial and error. Learned behavior allows for greater flexibility than genetic programming--a factor found in evolution. So babies following their mother for protection's sake also learn by watching her.

But all of these factors are precursors to attachment.

All mammals are social beings. The mother-infant bond is central. Nursing requires proximity. So infant mammals stay close to their mothers for protection from predators and things they don't yet know about--among human hunter-gatherers cooking fires were a more freuqent danger than predators--for food and also for learning.

And because humans have such a large brain and much of instinctive behavior is modified by culture, learning is paramount. Bowlby was very aware of this. He did not say that protection from predators was the only purpose of attachment--although it might have been the originating purpose earlier in evolution.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! Even statements that are so basic that you have learned them in beginning classes of college biology still need mention of sources in a Wikipedia article. Please read WP:source. "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Lova Falk talk 09:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lova! I Know! I know! the need for accessible sources...and some of this data is seen briefly in high school. But a short and easy-to-read source is not necessarily easily accessible. Wikipedia could and should be that source. I checked WP articles on Ethology, Evolution and Comparative Psychology and Comparative Anatomy; I wouldn't recommend them to the casual reader. That's probably why the rules say it must be "verifiable"--even when it isn't verified.
--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Observable attachment behaviors (edited for clarity)

But there are other difficulties. In college, graduate school work requires vast amounts of reading, so that students get in the habit of skimming. The teacher's interpretation may override a reading of the text. It's easy to miss many things that way, especially with Bowlby. People forget that he was laying the foundations of a new approach in the face of great opposition from his erstwhile colleagues. He could talk openly about the more obvious aspect of attachment--such as when babies start crying and following their mother--but could only hint at other things.
For example, in Chapter 11 he says, "...at some stage in the development of the behavioral systems responsible for attachment, proximity to mother becomes a set-goal."that is to say, the child's physical efforts to maintain proximity come later. But in the next sentence he lists 5 patterns of behavior: "sucking, clinging, following, crying and smiling...as contributing to attachment." (Had he listed them in the order they emerge it would be sucking and crying--which exist at birth--smiling, clinging, following). (p. 180 in the 1999 edition before the subheading Attachment behavior and its place in nature).
But amidst the controversies that followed the definition of attachment became reduced to only the infant physically seeking proximity, which was obvious even to casual observers.

In his Forward to the 1999 edition, Alan Schore says, "...as Bowlby surveys the uncharted territory of mother-infant relationally driven psychobiological processes, he identifies its essential topographical landmarks..." Bowlby had the mind of a mapmaker who could see all the parts and figure out how they fit together. He recognized that in some mammals the infant follows from birth (herd animals on foot and most primates through clinging) but that in others (gorillas--p.191--and humans--p. 183) the mother provides proximity in the first days or months. />

Newborn human babies have such immaturity of brain that it's very hard to study them according to the demands of modern scientific methodology. But Bowlby, like Darwin and other scientists before them, depended entirely on very perceptive direct observation. It's very frustrating to see that Attachment theory has become so complex and disputed as a science--when laypeople from the time of hunter-gatherer mothers could understand it intuitively. .--205.167.120.201 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

First, who wrote this? There are two different signatures to this text. Is this 205.167.120.201 (talk) or Margaret9mary (talk? Or do both signatures belong to the same person?

Second, the talk page is for discussing the article. There is no section in the article called "Observable attachment behaviors", so what part of the article do you want to discuss? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 18:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I had to take a break and the computer logged me out. So I saved and then logged in and saved again.--Margaret9mary (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Greater clarity needed in defining attachment

No, there isn't a section on observable attachment behaviors--yet.

The debate over attachment has lasted for over 40 years unresolved. And the effects of having an increasing number of infants put into child care near birth needs to be assessed. The children seem to do okay; they don't react as strongly to changes in caregiver; as they get older they enter easily into casual relationships. But more and more on reaching adulthood people are having serious difficulties in sustaining healthy long-term intimate relationships. More grandparents are raising their grandchildren. Lack of commitment to individual and community relationships is leading to a significant rise in illegal and sociopathic behaviors. A lack of sense of what's needed to sustain community is increasing with each generation. Bowlby saw the connection between disrupted attachment and delinquent behavior decades before he began working on attachment.

I've found that reading Bowlby paragraph by paragraph, and rereading, stopping to think, reveals many answers to questions that are as yet unresolved. (I can cite pages) In scores of places he indicates attachment as earlier and more complex than is recognized today; and he poses problems in a way that suggests a direction to solve them. For example, in the definition of attachment he doesn't just analyze the similarities and differences between imprinting in birds and attachment in mammals. He distinguishes between ground-dwelling birds (ducks and geese) and tree-nesting birds; and between mammals that walk or cling from birth (herd animals and most primates) and those that depend on the mother to seek/maintain proximity in the first days or months. This is due to genetic differences. Tree nesting baby birds are born more immature, with smaller brains, are relatively safe in a tree but can't fly; they are altricial--like humans but less so. His discussion raises the question--why do some mammals demonstrate attachment behavior at birth and some seem so delayed?

I would like to contribute to the article and help make the article on attachment more comprehensible for laypeople; but when I did so last time what I added was immediately deleted, apparently under the assumption that I didn't know what I was talking about or perhaps assuming I belonged to the attachment parenting position. Your comments include indications of a willingness to listen so I must ask you--What do I do about deletions without room for discussion?

I've read more than Bowlby's Attachment, but my main experience with attachment parenting was observing mothers with their babies in Mexico in the 1960-70s, a working system of behaviors shared in community and passed down from generation to generation--very different from the U.S. (which is more experimental and inclined to excess). I also have extensive experience in reparenting myself which greatly contributed to my understanding. (PhD. in UDLV)
(P.S. Carta has a great article on the closing of fontanelles which clarifies the time table for brain growth--http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/age-closure-fontanelles-sutures). Margaret9mary (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)--205.167.120.201 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Being able to think clearly is a necessary adjunct to scientific study. As of now, in the 2nd section (Attachment) the article says "The theory proposes that children attach to carers instinctively,[10] for the purpose of survival and, ultimately, genetic replication."[note #11] As it stands this would imply that incest is a natural outcome of infant attachment.

Probably what it meant to say is that the experience of attachment in infancy lays the neurological, social and emotional foundations on which, years later, the peer relationship of adult attachment with a spouse or long-term partner will be sustained; and this may well involve genetic replication. But the sentence as it stands can easily be misunderstood. I removed "and, ultimately, genetic replication." Why?--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DEAR FINITES!

Clarifying certain issues concerning infant attachment would greatly improve the article. As it stands now its written for professionals, not laypeople.

There's another issue I refer you to Chapter 11 of Bowlby's Attachment--The Child's Tie to his Mother: Attachment Behavior. Specifically the first two subheadings.

The first--Alternative theories--briefly describes psychoanalytic writings on a child's response to separation or loss and states this is "a new theory" (p. 177) and "The hypothesis to be advanced here is different.." (p. 179). But he does take from it sucking and clinging as "closest to the hypothesis now proposed.." He then mentions "five patterns of behavior--sucking, clinging, following, crying and smiling...contributing to attachment," which between the ages of 9 and 18 months, "usually become incorporated into a far more sophisticated goal-corrected system."

The problem Bowlby faced, it seems,was that although even casual observers had seen human and animal babies following their mother, they did not relate the other behaviors--sucking and crying at birth, and smiling and clinging, as liable to promote the mother seeking proximity before the child could do it for him/herself.

In the next subheading--Attachment behavior and its place in nature-- he describes the analogous behavior of birds and mammals re imprinting and attachment (similar purpose, evolved separately). He clarifies the difference between ground dwelling birds (ducks, geese) compared to tree nesting birds--and herd animals (that maintain proximity by walking shortly after birth) and most primates (that can sustain their weight by clinging) in comparison to rodents and carnivores that are blind and helpless at birth, gorillas that can't sustain their weight at birth (p. 191) and humans who are "born so very immature" (p. 183). In the latter cases both birds and mammals must depend on their mother(father) to achieve proximity at first.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ATTACHMENT? Mammals are social beings and as babies their social abilities through interacting with others--and humans share genetically those foundations of social behavior. That seems to be the reason for Bowlby's emphasis on ethology.

Leaving out the five behaviors and beginning attachment at 6 months implies that the baby is not developing socially until suddenly it appears out of nowhere. Tracing early attachment behaviors from birth makes much more sense.

Bowlby mentions in various places throughout the book that the mother also seeks and/or maintains proximity, especially in response to danger but also to an infant's distress--not just to danger but also pain, hunger or aloneness/separation.

The five behaviors have been left out of the WP definition of attachment and the definition of attachment has been restricted to the infant physically seeking proximity when they develop mobility. But in the above cited chapter and in various other places in the book Bowlby mentions that attachment behavior in seeking proximity is a reciprocal behavior.--Margaret9mary (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC) will edit later.--Margaret9mary (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC) further--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

AND FRANKLY I THINK THE REASON WHY THE ATTACHMENT PARENTING MOVEMENT IS SO EXTREME AND SLIGHTLY HYSTERICAL AT TIMES IS BECAUSE MANY MOTHERS HAVE OBSERVED THAT THEIR BABY IS BEGINNING TO BOND FROM BIRTH and they don't buy the professional interpretation of attachment. If this is so, by ignoring what Bowlby said and what laypeople have observed discredits science and causes harm to millions of babies. After all, why are you writing about attachment--to help laypeople, aren't you? Remember the hypothesis that animals don't feel emotions? Pet owners didn't buy that either.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is about attachment theory - not what people think attachment theory ought to be. Up to 6 months they are called pre-attachment behaviours. This is described by Bowlby - as is the reciprocation.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)