Talk:Attachment theory/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

TO DO

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

Addition to Recent developments section

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

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

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

Hi. Yes it looks very interesting. I read some of the website. Two things. Firstly this article tries to cover the whole of attachment theory which as I am sure you appreciate is a huge subject. If you look through the article you will see that for many things there is just a brief mention and then a link to a separate article. Like Mentalization for example. I see you have written an article on Parental deficit. What this article really needs is a brief sentence or two explaining the concept and then linking to the PD article. Secondly, on sources. Everything has to be sourced to a reliable secondary source and the concept has to be notable. A website blog would not be considered a suitable source for introducing new theories or concepts into a a psychology article - particularly one that is a featured article. Has the book on parental defecit been published and if so - who by? Are there any commentaries on it by noted academics/theorists in the field or does it appear in any scholarly or academic works about the subject? If so we can cite those sources. Hope this helps. Here are some links to policies; Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, Verifiability, Citing sources, No original research, What Wikipedia is not
How about something like this (assuming an appropriate source can be found);
    • Italian psychologist A. Vitale, thinking in evolutionary terms, has formulated the theory of Parental deficit in which the parent unconsciously sends alarm signals to the child triggering the alarm response. This leads to increased protection seeking behaviour by the child towards the parent, despite the fact that it is the parent causing the alarm. This process results in the inhibition of autonomous actions, making the child more susceptible to conditioning. The purpose is to enable the child to fit more satisfactorily into human society, at some cost to the child. Feel free to improve on this. For other readers - here is the blog and book.Fainites barleyscribs 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found other books written by the author and published:

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

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

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

Psychoanalysis and other lacks

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

Could you please provide some specific sources providing the material you say is lacking. It is difficult to describe attachment theory comprehensively in a single article. I had thought of a separate article called Attachment theory and psychoanalysis to chart their mutual history/influence on each other and so on. There is also a History of attachment theory article that could be expanded. (Mentalisation is included twice in the article with links to the relevent articles.)Fainites barleyscribs 16:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
For exaple: Stephen A. Mitchell proofs his relational theorys by attachment. Arietta Slade is Psychoanalist. Joseph D. Lichtenberg also refers on Attachement. en.wp even don't know how Lichtenber is? A clue: [1]. Fonagy anyway reserches in attachment [2]. So did Beebe & Lachman [3]. This is just an extract of connections. but the main lack or better underrate is the missing explanation of cross-generational effects of maternal attachment representations by M. Main and the AAI. A further important person in neuroscience is Allan Schore. How is Schore? He connects Attachment and the development of the brain and summarized the emergence of attachment. sry my english ia awful Widescreen ® 01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Fonagy is covered in "Recent developments" here Recent developments - Whereas Bowlby was inspired by Piaget's insights into children's thinking, current attachment scholars utilise insights from contemporary literature on implicit knowledge, theory of mind, autobiographical memory and social representation.[125] Psychoanalyst/psychologists Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have attempted to bring attachment theory and psychoanalysis into a closer relationship through cognitive science as mentalization.[99] Mentalization, or theory of mind, is the capacity of human beings to guess with some accuracy what thoughts, emotions and intentions lie behind behaviours as subtle as facial expression.[126] This connection between theory of mind and the internal working model may open new areas of study, leading to alterations in attachment theory.[127] and in clinical applications here Attachment theory and research laid the foundation for the development of the understanding of "mentalization" or reflective functioning and its presence, absence or distortion in psychopathology. The dynamics of an individual's attachment organization and their capacity for mentalization can play a crucial role in the capacity to be helped by treatment.[156][160]. I am aware that psychoanalysts, having comprehensively rejected Bowlby in earlier years, have now incorporated him back into psychoanalysis. But this article is about attachment theory not psychoanalysis. Cross generational effects are mentioned. What is the missing "explanation" you wish to add? Regarding neuroscience, the editors did consider how much of this to add in the biology section but it is still a relatively new area. I will have a look at the sources you mention and see if I can identify the gaps. Fainites barleyscribs 10:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Great! My english is not good enough to work at articles. What I'm trying to say is, that Attachment and Psychoanalysis is an inseparable cooperation. Itself the terms of Attachment-reserchers are psychoanalytically cointed. They use Terms like Objekt or Objekt-Relation, Representation, Self and others to explain psychological processes. Terms in Cognitiv Psych are often not adequate to explain these processes If you want to explain, what Attachment Theory is, you can't deny psychoanalitical influences. But this ist the state of article.
If you just mention in passing that maternal attachment styles have influence in attachment of their childs, you cut of one of the most important and influential statements of attachment theory. Maternal care behavior is not an remarkable phenomenon. Furthermore attachment disorders is not only a dsm category. Disorders been described by attachment theory down to the last detail. Generally attachment reserchers are not agree with manual categorys of attachment disorders. They got there own categorys. Widescreen ® 12:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Well Bowlby profoundly departed from psychoanalysis theory and practice and was ostracised by them as a consequence. Modern psychoanalysis has caught up with him but they can hardly claim credit! I don't think maternal attachment styles is just mentioned in passing but I will check the relevent sections to see if it needs to be made clearer. As for attachment disorder - there is not space in this article to go into the issues surrounding attachment diorder but you will see there is an article called Attachment disorder which attempts to disentangle the various uses of the term. That article specifically refers to proposed alternative classifications by Leiberman/Zeanah and so on. It also refers to the pseudoscience versions of attachment disorder. There is also an article on Reactive attachment disorder though that one carefully follows DSM/ICD-10 and avoids too much speculation.Fainites barleyscribs 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
We had wondered about including Schore etc in the biological section or the recent developments section. I think you are probably right that it should be mentioned with links to the relevent pages.Fainites barleyscribs 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Mayby my view on disorders is infuenced by german and psychoanalytic literatur about attachment. Bowlby always search the dialogue whith psychoanalysis and vice versa. So the canadian psychoa. society heard lecturs of bwolby for example. It's not a question of credit what psychoanalysis left from attachment theory. It's a question of interaction that had taken place in the late 1980s. 20 Years of common development now. Bowlbys theorys came in an inappropriate moment of dogmatic controversy in psychoanalysis. And 30 years too soon. That underlines the prospective character of Bowlbys works. If you just describe the development till Bowlbys ostracised, you just telling the half of the story. Widescreen ® 10:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The entry in "Recent developments" now reads; Whereas Bowlby was inspired by Piaget's insights into children's thinking, current attachment scholars utilise insights from contemporary literature on implicit knowledge, theory of mind, autobiographical memory and social representation.[2] Psychoanalyst/psychologists Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have attempted to bring attachment theory and psychoanalysis into a closer relationship through cognitive science as mentalization.[3] Mentalization, or theory of mind, is the capacity of human beings to guess with some accuracy what thoughts, emotions and intentions lie behind behaviours as subtle as facial expression.[4] This connection between theory of mind and the internal working model may open new areas of study, leading to alterations in attachment theory.[5] Since the late 1980s, there has been a developing rapprochement between attachment theory and psychoanalysis, based on common ground as elaborated by attachment theorists and researchers, and a change in what psychoanalysts consider to be central to psychoanalysis. Object relations models which emphasise the autonomous need for a relationship have become dominant and are linked to a growing recognition within psychoanalysis of the importance of infant development in the context of relationships and internalised representations. Psychoanalysis has recognised the formative nature of a childs early environment including the issue of childhood trauma. A psychoanalytically based exploration of the attachment system and and an accompanying clinical approach has emerged together with a recognition of the need for measurement of outcomes of interventions.[6] Fainites barleyscribs 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The article says this on parental representations; Recent research has sought to ascertain the extent to which a parent's attachment classification is predictive of their children's classification. Parents' perceptions of their own childhood attachments were found to predict their children's classifications 75% of the time.[42][43][44] 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
For neuro-science, I thought we might use this one; Back to Basics; Attachment, Affect Regulation, and the Developing Right Brain: Linking Developmental Neuroscience to Pediatrics. Allan N. Schore, PhD wherein he explains it all for paediatricians. Fainites barleyscribs 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

For what its worth - I think it should be mentioned - but not as if anything was established fact as it were. It's the new area of scientific exploration but it's somewhat in its infancy. Fainites barleyscribs 21:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well it's nearly impossible to set a scientist or science as established. As well it is just a small part of the reserch field in neuroscience. But I think the reserches of Schore got enought reputatin in neuroscience, cognitiv science, psychology and AT that it would be careless and at the end wrong to conceal Schore. His statements about the affectregulation cycles and the development of attachment seems to be state of the art in this part of reserch. some statements are a little bit overgeneralized like the: the right brain, is the place of Unconscious. But thats his style. Widescreen ® 12:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable! Widescreen ® 17:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
What is? Fainites barleyscribs 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bowlby being described as a 'psychoanalyst'

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

Well he was a psychoanalyst - and very serious about it. He was also a psychiatrist and understood science. He is only one of many psychoanalysts excluded by the dominant group over the years. That was a feature of how psychoanalysis was at the time. Anna Freud said "Bowlby is too important to be lost to psychoanalysis" but they ostracised him all the same. He remained a psychoanalyst though, and no doubt this was an important part of his thinking. The lead also includes the words In the early days of the theory, academic psychologists criticized Bowlby, and the psychoanalytic community ostracised him for his departure from psychoanalytical tenets; What happened and a brief description of the dispute and differences is included in the body of the article in the history under psychoanalysis. I'm not sure I agree that Bowlby should not be called a psychoanalyst though. I mean - he was actually clinical director of the Tavistock.
The editor in the section above is of the view that the article pays insufficient attention to the extent to which attachment theory and psychoanalysis have, more recently, found common ground - particularly those who espouse object relations. I am aware these things are controversial though and much discussion of it is beyond the scope of this article and needs an article of it's own. Fainites barleyscribs 08:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Text of Attachment (psychology) article

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

Talk page link

  1. ^ [4].
  2. ^ Thompson RA (2008). "Early Attachment and Later Developments". In Cassidy J, Shaver PR. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York and London: Guilford Press. pp. 348–65. ISBN 9781593858742. 
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Robbins was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Fonagy P, Gergely G, Jurist EL, Target M (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press. ISBN 1590511611. 
  5. ^ Mercer pp. 165–68.
  6. ^ Fonagy P, Gergely G, Target M. "Psychoanalytic Constructs and Attachment Theory and Research". In Cassidy J, Shaver PR. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, research and Clinical Applications. New York and London: Guilford Press. pp. 783–810. ISBN 9781593858742. 
  7. ^ a b Bowlby, John (1999). Attachment and Loss: Vol I, 2nd Ed. Basic Books. pp. xvi–xvii, 172–73. ISBN 0-465-00543-8. 
  8. ^ Miller, W.B. & Rodgers, J.L. (2001). "The Ontogeny of Human Bonding Sysytems: Evolutionary Origins, Neural Bases, and Psychological Manifestations". New York: Springer. ISBN 0-7923-7478-9.
  9. ^ Dunst, C.J. & Kassow, D.Z. (2008). Caregiver Sensitivity, Contingent Social Responsiveness, and Secure Infant Attachment. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention, 5(1), 40-56link BAO