Talk:Attachment theory

See also

• Attachment theory

External links

• A Buddhist view on Attachment

bg:Привързаност

cs:Attachment

ru:Привязанность

tr:Bağlılık (psikoloji)

|}

Handbook of Attachment correction

Having settled down to reading the Handbook of Attachment with care I have found (among others) this quote: "From the moment of birth human infants are prepared to bond with their caregivers" and, "infants are biologically predisposed to form attachment bonds with their caregivers" Day-of-birth examples of behavior are given. (p. 136 and p. 137) #6 Attachment and Evolution (Simpson and Belsky). This makes sense; attachment as a biologically determined behavioral system must be present at birth and is activated when the infant begins to enter into relationships. What occurs after 7 months is that the system has developed to the point where it is obvious to all--as Bowlby states.Margaret9mary (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. And see top of the page the first quote I cited: "When he is born, an ifant is...equipped with a number of behavioural systems ready to be activated." p. 265 (Bowlby, Attachment).Margaret9mary (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure - but not the same as actual attachment. It's pre-attachment. what you are confusing is the forming of actual attachment with the biological readiness to form attachments. As you go through the handbook you will find this is made clear.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Several points;

• You have altered the lead to Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some months during the period from birth to three years of age. This used to read from 6 months. Your change is simply not correct.
• you don't have consensus to make this change. Being born with a behavioural system is not the same as forming an attachment.
• The lead should reflect the article in that it should contain a summary. Not your views. Your assumption based on the material above that infants become attached in those first few months is WP:OR.
• I had understood from the discussions above that you felt the article lacked suffcient detail and explanation of the biologically determined behavioural system and early attachment behaviours. You are perfectly at liberty to put together a better section on this issue - or any other issue you think is missing. Once this is established in the article it should be reflected in the lead.
• Simply adding to the lead that attachment starts at birth - which is a) not the case and b) not reflected in the article, is not acceptable in an FA.
• I am puzzled by your approach. Matters have been discussed at great length and I had thought you were proposing to expand various apsect of the article you felt was lacking. All you have in fact done is make a few alterations to the lead. If you need any help with the technical aspects of putting together a section, citing, sourcing etc - feel free to ask.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am frustrated. My concern is that in the 40+ years since the first publication of Bowlby's Attachment attachment theorists have not clarified what the period of "pre-attachment" is. The term can easily lead to an unintended miscommunication--that somehow the period from birth to 6+ months doesn't matter and that having a consistent primary caregiver during that time is not important. The WP article certainly gives that impression. And in real life too often that's what's being practiced. In fact the period from birth to 6+ months is when attachment is developing although it's not yet clearly manifest. (Consider what would happen if an infant were left alone most of the time during that period--the result would be a serious delay in the development of attachment.) Babies need consistent care that is sensitive and responsive from birth--the period from birth is vitally important. Bowlby said so, although apparently he wasn't ready to state it emphatically enough to be heard. (I have personally witnessed its importance so I did hear him).

Sometimes the term "early attachment" is used in the Handbook but I haven't found yet what that is intended to mean. In any case it's a much better term. More accurate. It indicates this period is part of the process of developing attachment.

I felt very frustrated with these difficulties, but hadn't found an acceptable way to improve the article. So I waited over 3 months before doing anything to the article. I'm also in the process of developing a Simple WP article: Attachment in mammals--posted for the present on my User talk page.

I want to offer a definition of attachment organized from page 3 of Jean Mercer's 2010 article Attachment theory and its vicissitudes:

Attachment is a behavioral system that "regulate(s) sustained social relationships". The "functions of attachment involve dyadic emotional regulation"; "cognitive and behavioral factors are also present."Margaret9mary (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved from article

Depending on the living and child-rearing arrangements of the culture in which a child is raised, it may thus be normal for a child's attachment figures to be found beyond a nuclear family group, and for the culture's family and kinship norms to reflect these diffuse patterns of care, nurture and emotional ties, as in nurture kinship.

I've put this here as it wasn't in the right place and it's not clear where it best fits. I'm not sure it adds anything to the article as attachment doesn't presuppose a "nuclear family" anyway.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am happy for this to be adjusted, but I think it is worthwhile for some essence of the point to appear in the article.

This point, in broad terms, is to clarify that the gender/number/genetic relationship (...and more) of the attachment figure/s is non-deterministic, and indeed can be very flexible. This paragraph of the article already makes this point in reference to gender and in reference to the potential number of attachment figures. I think we should add the same point in reference to genetic relationship and that this would be a logical paragraph in which to make it.

It is an important point because it pre-empts possible prejudices in regard to essentializing the care-giving relationship as being 'most naturally' the role of a certain individual... which can then get transformed, via the naturalistic fallacy, into a moral stance. This prejudice occurs in relation to gender, number of figures, and also genetic relationship (where e.g. 'adoption' is seen as un-natural). Here is what Bowlby said:

“In the discussion so far it has been implied that a child directs his behaviour towards one particular figure, referred to either as his mother-figure or even simply as his mother. This usage, which for the sake of brevity is unavoidable, has nonetheless given rise on occasion to misunderstanding [Bowlby inserts a note which reads:] For example, it has sometimes been alleged that I have expressed the view that mothering should always be provided by a child’s natural mother and also that mothering ‘cannot be safely distributed among several figures’ (Mead, 1962). No such views have been expressed by me.” (Bowlby 1982, 303)

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)