Wikipedia

Talk:Attachment theory/Archive 3

< Talk:Attachment theory
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Fainites in topic Thoughts

Psychoanalysis box

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Should either Bowlby or attachment theory be in this box? Its a tricky one. Fainites barley 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


I don't even think the box should be there. It implies that Bowlby's theory is a type of psychoanalytic theory, and it really isn't. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if the box shouldn't be there - should Bowlby be in the box? Or does he count as an apostate psychoanalyst who "done good" (or ill - depending on your view). Fainites barley 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of reorganising of bits of material and hopefully cut out quite a lot of repetition and extraneous detail. Had you noticed, Jean, that the adult sections are entirely unreferenced? Also the RAD and AD section - though the latter are easily remedied. Re the box - there does seem to be a modern branch of psychoanalysis that incorporates attachment theory - cf Joseph Schwartz. I don't know what the criteria are for the box. It says "part of a series of articles on psychanalysis" not "articles by ostracized former psychoanalysts who stepped outside the parameters" (of which of course Bowlby was only one of many. I saw one source which estimated there are 34 therapies or theories formulated by cold-shouldered psychoanalysts who dissed the credo). Personally I'd be happy to dump the box but I don't know what psychoanalysts think about it all. Joseph thought attachment theory was drive theory I seem to recall. I don't know any other psychoanalysts on Wiki who could help. Fainites barley 21:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was me that put Bowlby in the box by the way, because attachment theory was already in it. I remember we discussed that before but then the box disappeared. I've left a message on the box talkpage but I doubt anyone will respond. Fainites barley 22:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Classical psychoanalysis had an attachment theory that was based on drive theory-- that's why JB was at such pains to say that it wasn't the usual set of drives/instincts at work. Later, the ego psychologists/psychoanalysts talked about development of reality functions in the second year, and this would include perception of specific people as caregivers, sources of security, etc. I don't have the impression that psychoanalysts as a group have adopted Bowlby's theory, but certainly people like Fonagy have done some integration. But Bowlby's stress on reality functions from the middle of the first year onward would be out of step with psychoanalysis, as would the assumption that the need for felt security is an important primary need, not just secondary to hunger.

I see we're tagged again by The Man Who Won't Mediate. Sorry, KM, we've explained carefully the nature of attachment theories in general and the current predominance of Bowlby's. I don't think your complaint holds water. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well as Alistair said "tagging is a last resort to mark that discussion has failed to reach consensus" and that we were being very "noble" to leave it there even during an attempted mediation. However, as there's no mediation because Kingsley won't, he ignores 3PO's and WP:SORN opinions and won't discuss anything, the tag is obviously inappropriate. However - I can't be bothered to waste time with an edit war over it. There's too much work to do here already. Anyway - I always think tags make articles look more interesting and make people more inclined to read them. Fainites barley 17:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So is that a yes or no to removing the box? to removing bowlby and/or attachment theory from the box? Fainites barley 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(I've now done all three after a discussion with someone who's trying to clean up all the psychoanalysis pages Fainites barley 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)).

Jean I've distributed the 'developments of tenets' section amongst the relevent tenets. What do you think? i can easily put it back if you thought the previous version was better. Fainites barley 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it as you've now done it. Jean Mercer (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oooh ta. Fainites barley 13:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

We seem to hvea lot of Lorenz and not much Hinde. Fainites barley 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of information on Hinde in the Van der Horst, Van der Veer & Van IJzendoorn (2007) interview. Frakn (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Frakn. Fainites barley 08:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a clinical practice section and reffed RAD and AD. Nothing on use in clinical practice for adults yet though. I've also cut down and reffed the adult attachment section. It was rather repetitive. Do you think its cut down too much though? Perhaps something on the relationship between attachment styles and parenting/childs style - or is this getting too detailed? Fainites barley 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you also want to get into temperament, I wouldn't think so much detail is helpful-- it's sort of too much and yet not enough. Jean Mercer (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose something to the effect that temperament is a growth area as it were - lots of research and so on. Fainites barley 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of human tie-age

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

If we can avoid terms like bond or tie, and substitute some observable events, we will also avoid the need to define these metaphorical terms. I don't care whether Ainsworth used them-- she also had hundreds of pages to explain what she meant! Jean Mercer (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

At least, can we clarify by saying "child-to-adult" tie, or the other way around when wanted? After teaching this stuff for many years, I can tell you that if a statement is not made absolutely clear in this way, many readers will interpret it to mean-- whatever they thought it meant in the first place. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the point really of the P&G passage - because they are trying to explain that specific meaning of attachment in attachment theory. Some people think that attachment says all there is to be said about relationships between children and parents - and of course it doesn't. Its only one aspect. I've dumped Ainsworth and added a simple explanation of attachment behavioural system. On the other point - if we need to use bond or tie somewhere for basic explanation, do you want to choose bond or tie and then stick to it? Where did you want to put in child-to-adult etc? (Personally I prefer tie - I don't know why - bond just never sounds right. Maybe its the epoxy connection or perhaps it sounds to much like what goes on in group hugs). Fainites barley 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put child-to-adult where i wanted it, already. I too would choose tie (if held at knife-point), because "bond" has already been pre-empted by Klaus & Kennell a long time ago. But there just isn't any word like that that makes it clear that the connections are not the same at the two ends. It's too bad that "attraction" has a sexual connotation, otherwise it might be useful. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On a totally separate point

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Jean can you remember where this comes from; According to Mary Dozier (2003) ”holding therapy does not emanate in any logical way from attachment theory or from attachment research” (Dozier, 2003, p. 253). Its got orphaned on the AT page and I can't remember where its come from. I suspect it comes from this article "Attachment-based treatment for vulnerable children " in the 2003 volume of Attachment and Human Development but I don't have a copy. Can you help?Fainites barley 23:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it does. Do you need the rest of the reference? Jean Mercer (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No thats OK. I just needed confirmation that that was the right article. Thanks. Fainites barley 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've isbn'd and pmid'd everything I could find and redone the Harris/Pinker paragraph. What next? Fainites barley 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the para ending with note 17 go in the previous section, attachment styles? Jean Mercer (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the whole paragraph or just the bit about continuous rather than discreet styles?Fainites barley 20:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You've done an incredible amount, and i think it's looking quite good now. Thank you on behalf of Wiki-reading families! Jean Mercer (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean the whole para-- it's not about later developments, but about the previous topic, attachment styles.Jean Mercer (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. You shift it then cos I'm not sure I'm looking at the right bit. Fainites barley 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the slightly more obscure journals don't have pmids though which means some pure science type will complain about them if we ever go to FAC. I'll see if they have doi's. I did manage to find isbns for the old books which pre-date the isbn system though. Fainites barley 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Brains

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Should we have a section on the neuro bit - like Schore and so on or is that still too speculative? (We could even have that boiling brain from the bonding page). Fainites barley 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, no. There's nothing in attachment theory about brain functions. Obviously there must be some, because emotion and thought are both involved, but to drag in some speculative connection is only a distraction from the theory itself and from all the work that's been done on it. What's more, it's a sort of flag-waving that implies a level of knowledge that doesn't exist.

Neither do I want to include anything about differences in tympanic temperatures! Jean Mercer (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tags again as it hasn't attracted any new editors and nothing's happening about dispute resolution so they're pointless. Fainites barley 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the pictures OK? I know they don't specifically illustrate attachment theory as such but they do add a bit of colour and interest. I particularly like Lorenz and his geese and that superb one of the lovely looking african family. The one of the mother at the top right is apparantly a featured image on Turkish wiki.Fainites barley 20:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

They're lovely pictures, especially the Turkish one. But what about the two people in the water, labeled mother and child? Neither one looks like a mother to me-- the dark-haired one might be old enough but is so flat-chested she seems barely pubescent, or even a boy with some gynecomastia.Jean Mercer (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At first I assumed it was simply a romanticised version of mother and child - its called mother and child, but on reflection (and looking at a larger version) it looks a bit dodgy in a number ways which I won't go into here. There's a shortage of images of parents with older children. Anyway - I've replaced it with some others. What I would really like is one of those old black and white photos of starchy nurses in a childrens ward or residential nursery with all the children in neat lines, and a WWII pic of evacuees. Nothing on the commons though.Fainites barley 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Currently called "further reading". I didn't do anything with this other than remove all the attachment therapy nonsense. Could you have a look through, Jean, and see if there's anything there which shouldn't be or obvious things which should be and aren't? It doesn't need to contain anything that's already cited in the article.Fainites barley 11:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that if anyone needs more than this, it's time for them to move to some other source than Wiki. I don't see anything problematic. Jean Mercer (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

Well we've done a lot of work and I've got to the point where i've looked at it so many times I can't see anything any more. Howsabout we ask for a peer review? What about LingNut who did one for RAD? One thing I do need to do though is page numbers. You'll have to do them for the 1969 edition of Bowlby as I've only got the 2nd edition. Also - the convention is -mpage numbers for books but not for papers. But what about the very long historical papers like Bretherton? Fainites barley 18:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jean can you give me the page numbers for Bowlby 69 and mercer and then I can stick them in. Shall I set them up with empty spaces ? Fainites barley 21:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean page numbers indicating the part of a book referred to (first para above)? I don't think this is generally necessary in any case-- p. number for direct quote, not otherwise-- so unless this is some special Wikiness, I wouldn't do it for Bretherton.

Let me see what i can do about the two page numbers. I'm assuming this is direct quotes? Jean Mercer (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, i found something new but haven't managed to get the whole paper yet: Kraemer, G. (1992). A psychobiological theory of attachment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 493-541.Jean Mercer (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oooh! Interesting! is this a rival theory? I suppose Bowlby is "psychobiological" in its own way - but this sounds like something different. i found this too "The psychobiology of early attachment. Clinical Neuroscience Research , Volume 4 , Issue 5 - 6 , Pages 291 - 300 M . Hofer" but whether thats a la Bowlby or the same as Kraemer i don't know yet. Fainites barley 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

F., I'm not at all sure what you mean about those page numbers. All the direct quotes seem to have theirs. I've never used a style that gives pp. for indirect quotes, so I'm not sure what's required. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well basically - if the source is a paper you don't put in page numbers other than for the page numbers of the whole paper. If the source is a book you put in page numbers for whereabouts in the book you got the info from. This does seem to be a Wiki thing. It enables people to find and check your sources. This causes a problem with the ref list if you cite a book more than once. The only way round it i've found is to to do it the way i did it on RAD. You put the book under 'refs' and under the 'notes' you put eg "Prior and glaser pp 26-7" or "Bowlby 1969 2nd ed pp 201-13" or whatever. Do you see? But i don't have the original 1969 Bowlby so i can't put page numbers in cos they may be different in the 82 edition. Fainites barley 18:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done most of them. just left a few blanks which I couldn't find at the moment. Also the Bowlby 69. Fainites barley 21:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Clinical practice probably needs a bit of work. The stuff I've added is all for infants and todlers. We could do with a bit more about its position in therapeutic practice in general. Fainites barley 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm way too busy to help you out atm, but I'm really impressed with your work. On a totally trivial level I love the pictures, they really help break up the density of the text (at least pscyhologically Ü). A picture's worth a thousand words they say, one of mum and one of dad is perfect. I saw the dad first, 'cause he's on the left. But the mum's higher on the page. Can't get fairer than that. ;)
They're warm fuzzy pictures, for hard-headed text about challenging study of the importance of warm fuzziness; but they're not so warm and fuzzy they distract.
Hope someone can give time to a quality review of quality work. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alistair. Funny isn't it how the pictures make reading the article so much more appealing - even though they don't actually provide any information of note. There's a whole article in that somewhere. Fainites barley 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

F., I too am going to have to go to the library for the 1969, and I am really up to my nostrils, with a deadline for revising a book manuscript. (The publisher was 6 weeks late, so now if i want it to go into production in September I have to put in most of the next two weeks on it.) Jean Mercer (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll see what i can do. It may be floating around on the web somewhere - but mostly people just refer to the 2nd edition.Fainites barley 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you know a new Cassidy and Shaver is about to be published any minute now and we'll have to go through the whole thing again? Fainites barley 13:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, pretend we don't see it. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I won't tell if you don't. Fainites barley 06:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just the refs 36 and 38 to do. Can you tell me Jean which particular bits you had in mind here and I'll put the 1969 page numbers in. Fainites barley 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They both have to do with the section that discusses goal-corrected partnerships. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you check them please Jean. I've put in 394/5 which is the first section of Chapter 16 for 36 and 414-421 which is the first half dozen or so pages of Chapter 17. Fainites barley 19:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jean can you sort out ref 57 please. I think its one of yours. It seems to have two separate authors but only one title. Fainites barley 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fainites barley 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible image

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For Mother and baby. A reviewer's not keen on the Turkish one - too dark.

 
It's a beautiful photo. My only quibble is that they're not making eye contact, which would communicate a sense of connection between them. But yeah, it's fine. delldot talk 04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You prefer it to the multiple breasted lady on the review page then? So handy for quads. There are a couple of pictures showing mother baby eye contact but they're used in so many articles..... I couldn't find one of a father and baby gazing at each other either but I loved the complete happy confidence of the baby in the father one. I also like the powerful stare of the baby in the later father one though the father looks like he's missing a weeks sleep. The staring at strangers (cameras?) does I suppose illustrate stranger wariness or lack of? Secure base? Fainites barley 22:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago144 comments5 people in discussion

This review got automatically archived although it was still live so I've copied it here.Fainites barley 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

  • I am sorry I have been distracted for a while but will come in now and have a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The first sentence - I have never heard it used with the indefinite article like that. I would have just said 'attachment theory' and left of the 'an'.
  • The second attachment makes the first sentence flow oddly. Does it lose anything if it is removed?
  • Actually, thinking of the definition itself, it is always used (to or by me) with the key term 'intimate relationships'. Not sure familiar is actually strong enough. I'll check later on today.
  • and this article will follow that usage is redundant as already just stated.
  • Actually I am wondering if the article actually loses anything by ditching the whole first para of the lead. Have a rad and see what you think.
  • The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the first para of the lead should go - it is pretty unequivocal that the name Attachment Theory refers to the theory that has developed from Bowlby's work. The first para is a bit confused and doesn't add anything, apart from a sentence or two on preamble but they can be left in the body. apart from mentioning somewhere Although some of his ideas have been reworked or reinterpreted, - which could be incorporated further down the page.
Funnily enough we were hounded by an editor who claimed Bowlby did not originate attachment theory and refused to acknowledge plentiful sources to show he did. Fortunately he's now been community banned for pointy and tendentious editing. I think this paragraph dates from then in an attempt to clarify things. Nobody (including him) has ever been able to find an alternative "attachment theory" apart from a few limited early precursors like Freud or Suttie.Fainites barley 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. I put some of the material in the hisotory sectionFainites barley 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • More later - it is monday morning here (groan). PS: Prose looks pretty good. Once I go through it I think FAC is the place... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ..for discussion of interpersonal relationships between human beings. - discussion seems not to fit. analysis would be good but would be misconsrtued due to psychoanalysis. maybe examination or assessment is better.
How about "explanation"? Fainites barley 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
yep. works for me :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The word 'attachment' is used 16 times in the first three paragraphs of the Attachment section. I know it is a key word but any way this can be reduced without losing meaning would be helpful. It will be tricky...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. The old "hit them over the head" with it method. Fainites barley 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In the Tenets section, I'd italicise or bold the keywords in each point (monotropy etc.)
Done.Fainites barley 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • These assumptions form a coherent whole that fits with available data. The following is a list of the assumptions that form the theory: - repetitive. could be 'These assumptions form a coherent whole that fits with available data; they are listed as follows:' (?)
Done.Fainites barley 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Need to explain or (better) link dyadic (hopefully there should be something on wiktionary)
Sorry Cas - I can't find dyadic anywhere! Where is it?Fainites barley 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Attachment theory accepts the customary primacy of the mother as the main care-giver and therefore the person who interacts most with a young child, but there is nothing in the theory to suggest that fathers are not equally likely to become principal attachment figures if they happen to provide most of the childcare and related social interaction - cumbersome. How about 'Attachment theory acknowledges the mother as the main care-giver, although a father could feasibly fill the role (if they are the person who interacts with and cares for the child.)' (messy but no worse and alot less wordy - could probably even lose whole bit in brackets. It sounds a bit overemphatic as is)
Better - 'Attachment theory acknowledges the mother as the main care-giver, although this may not always be the case'

But then what-- how do you bring in the part about being an attachment figure? It's not necessarily the same as being the caregiver, which was the reason for the original rather cumbersome sentence. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also "customary" is important. Lots of attachment research and books mostly rabbit on about mothers or 'maternal' because most of the time thats who it is - or they use 'mothering' or mother figure' as descriptive of behaviours rather than gender. It was important to make the point that attachment behaviours and caregiver responses are not, in fact, gender specific. I'll see if I can refine it though.Fainites barley 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've swapped the passages round which I think gets what is meant across better.Fainites barley 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I concede your points are important, it just comes across as quite convoluted and overemphasized for what should be relatively straightforward to explain. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Possibly another legacy from the days of the Man Who Thought it was all a Plot Against Fathers. I sourced the point because I agreed with him that it was important to make it plain attachment was not gender specific. Attachment writers can be careless on this point. I really will try and refine it though. Fainites barley 17:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

OK. I've had to use 'citation' because its the only one that seems to work for papers that are chapters of a book. However, I've had to leave 16 as citejournal because its a quote and if I change it to 'citation' it doesn't show up. Fainites barley 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've now redone all the refs using the family templates including the encyclopaedia ones for compendiums. They should now be all of a piece. Fainites barley 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as nitpicky, either use the p. and pp. abbreviations or don't use them, but right now you mix the usage, about half your notes have them, the others don't.
OK. I just fill in the page numbers in the template. I have no idea why in a journal they show up after a colon and for a book they show up with pp. or p. I don't know what to do about the fact that they show up differently. Fainites barley 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • A number of your book references are lacking page numbers. Make sure they are meant to be referencing the whole book.
OK
    • Current ref 68 has a bare link in it, it needs to be formatted.
OK.Fainites barley 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Partial review by delldot talk

Very nice work, certainly doesn't look like a start class article to me. I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet though, so I'll wait before changing the class. A partial review for now:

  • Sorry, lead's way too long. You've probably expanded it based on people's requests, so it's got to be frustrating to hear. But it should be cut down, there's a good amount of detail you can take out.
took a chunk of history out.Fainites barley 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not a big fan of prioritizing minor MOS issues over content, but you know you'll get trouble for them at FAC, so I might as well bring them up:
    • Images left-aligned at section headers.
do you mean they should or shouldn't be? I thought you put them in alternately. Fainites barley 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe you're not supposed to left-align images directly under section headers. They can be left-aligned a paragraph down though, or right-aligned directly below. delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it's recommended that you don't set the size of the image, rather just do |thumb| and let the user's preferences set the size (not that most people have preferences set for that).
Done. Fainites barley 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • How about spinning out History into History of attachment theory and leaving a summary here? The article's very long and this section in particular is.
  • control+F for " <ref" (ref tag with space in front), "ref>.", "ref>," , etc. to make sure all punctuation is before the ref tag with no spaces. Also there are some sentences without periods after them, some of which you'll catch by searching for "[space]<ref".
Done. What a handy tool. Fainites barley 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't see the baby in the first image, it's too dark and busy. If it wasn't for the caption I wouldn't have known there was one. Maybe find a replacement for the first image? It's too bad because it's a cool idea for an image. The second image is also a great theme but also of poor quality.
Oh dear! This pic. is a featured image on Turkish Wikipedia! How about this one ?
 
Fainites barley 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I also can't see what's going on in the image in Attachment in adults.
  • How about a caption for the image in Ethology?
Done. Fainites barley 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "a process of proximity seeking to an identified attachment figure "--why italics?
Done. Fainites barley 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Numbers and units should be separated with a non-breaking space (&nbsp;) so the units don't show up by themselves on the next line. See WP:NBSP.
I've tried it in the lead but I can't seem to make it work. Fainites barley 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like a lot of long, complicated sentences. These are hard to follow. For example, Mary Ainsworth developed a theory of a number of attachment patterns or "styles" in infants in which distinct characteristics were identified known as secure attachment, avoidant attachment, anxious attachment and, later, disorganized attachment. Sometimes a colon or semicolon can give the reader a pause without breaking the flow: Mary Ainsworth developed a theory of a number of attachment patterns or "styles" in infants in which distinct characteristics were identified: these were secure attachment, avoidant attachment, anxious attachment and, later, disorganized attachment. Ideally, wikilinks for each.
Done. Will look for more. Fainites barley 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • An extreme lack of appropriate parenting can in some cases lead to a lack of attachment behaviours in a child and may result in the rare disorder known as reactive attachment disorder -- can you do away with the may and/or the in some cases without changing the meaning? This would cut down on redundancy. In my recent FAC someone suggested ctrl+F for all "can" and "may" to see if they can be removed with the meaning intact to tighten up the wording.
I removed the "in some cases" which makes it neater, Fainites barley 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Similarly, can you do away with both here: in both older infants and adults?
Done.Fainites barley 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Bowlby explored a range of fields including evolution by natural selection, object relations theory (psychoanalysis), control systems theory, evolutionary biology and the fields of ethology and cognitive psychology, in order to formulate a comprehensive theory of the nature of early attachments Confusing sentence. Maybe it would help to put the long list at the end so the reader knows why they're reading it. This way you have to wait through the list to find out what the rest of the sentence says.
OK. Fainites barley 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The main tenets of attachment theory, incorporating thinking from many fields, were presented to the British Psychoanalytic Society in London in three papers: The Nature of the Child’s Tie to His Mother (1958), Separation Anxiety (1960a), and Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood (1960b) -- way too much detail for the lead, should be moved to the body. Same with these sentences: The main tenets of attachment theory, incorporating thinking from many fields, were presented to the British Psychoanalytic Society in London in three papers: The Nature of the Child’s Tie to His Mother (1958), Separation Anxiety (1960a), and Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood (1960b).
Done. Fainites barley 08:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Criticism of attachment theory has been sporadic, some of it relating to an early precursor hypothesis called "maternal deprivation", published in 1951.[13] There has considerable criticism from a variety of disciplines, notably psychoanalysis, and from ethologists in the 1970s. -- sporadic and considerable sound kind of contradictory.

Obviously not done yet, I'll come back with more later. delldot talk 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How about combing the article for unnecessarily fancy words like whilst that have common equivalents? Let me know when you're done with this crop of suggestions and are ready for me to continue reviewing. delldot talk 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued review

  • I think the lead is still much too long. The last paragraph could be boiled down to a few sentences. Dates and book titles are too much detail for the lead. delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate to be a total conformist, but you know you're going to get trouble at FAC for having two images in the lead. I think it bespeaks a too-long lead that you can fit them. delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. I was trying not to offend the "fathers can be mothers too" crowd.Fainites barley 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The sporadic/considerable thing has not yet been addressed. delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Attachment
    • Repetition of the word affection in the paragraph beginning Attachment theory is not intended as an exhaustive description... delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • In that same paragraph, is strictly speaking adding something, or is it redundant wording that can be removed to tighten up the language? delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • This attitude involves the seeking of proximity to the other person and may include a variety of other attachment behaviours, but such behaviours are likely to occur only in threatening or uncomfortable circumstances. Can we have an example? This leaves the reader wondering. Also, how about may include a variety of other attachment behaviours that are likely to occur only in threatening...? delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The infant inconsistently referred to as 'him' and 'it'. delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • This sentence is very long, and it's a very long article, so let's look for areas of redundancy that can be cut. For example, there's some repetition with the attachment figure being unavailable or unresponsive. delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Unavailable and unresponsive mean two very different things here.Fainites barley 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks like this section could use some organization. One trick is to put hidden titles for each paragraph to help with organization and flow (e.g. if the first paragraph is <!-- definition -->, it might be logical to combine it with the second. If the fourth is behaviors, the second part of the fifth might be combined with it. If the fifth is 'attachment figures', the first half of it could be combined with the sixth). delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Choose care-giver or caregiver for consistency. delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Tenets
    • These assumptions form a coherent whole that fits with available data seems obvious; it's a theory, right? Could this be dropped to shorten the article? Or is it trying to say something specific that I'm missing? delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • History
    • Still way too long. Thoughts on spinning out a daughter article? delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

More to follow. delldot talk 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty [edit] link -->

  • Tenets
    • I'm seeing some redundancy, have you tried Tony1's redundancy exercises? For example, develop over a period of time --> develop over time delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • There's some repetition in Tenets from Attachment, e.g. these figures are not treated alike . Perhaps you can cut some from Attachment. delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Quotation marks inside a quote are converted to single marks. I believe you only need three dots for the ellipsis. This is a long quote, can it be cut down? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with the infant, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some time. -- Wording repetition from the previous sentence, and the concept is repeated from Attachment. Maybe cut it from the latter? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The internal working model is likely to owe much to the individual's early experiences with caregivers, but it can and does change with both real and vicarious experiences.-- This seems redundant with the info in the rest of the paragraph. Real and vicarious seems like minor detail that can be dropped. delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think use of and/or is discouraged by MOS (slashes in general have very limited uses, I believe). I think it suggests a or b or both. Since it's an example, I think or alone would be fine. delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Attachment patterns
    • Some authors see attachment theory as effectively the joint work of Ainsworth and Bowlby. - WP:WEASEL, some is generally discouraged as often redundant and too vague to be helpful. Just citing sources would help. Also, is effectively doing something important here, or can it be snipped? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • the laboratory portion of a larger study that included extensive home visitations over the first year of the child's life--Perhaps excessive detail that can be snipped? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • For research purposes, anxious-avoidant is called A, secure is called B, anxious–ambivalent (or "resistant") is called C, and disorganized/disoriented is called D.--Again, very detailed. Could this be dealt with in another article? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Description of patterns
    • This is very detailed. Could this be dealt with in another article (e.g. attachment types or attachment patterns) and the contents of this subsection moved into the main section? Alternately, this could be turned into a table with sentence fragments, which could cut down on the extensive text. e.g.:
behaviors in the different types or whatever [1]
  Child Caregiver
Secure protests caregiver's departure and is comforted on return responds appropriately, promptly and consistently to needs
Avoidant you get the idea

delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    • I don't see why freezing for several seconds or rocking and avoidant are bolded. delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The child protests the mother's departure --Why the sudden switch from attachment figure to mother? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The attachment figure shows little response to the child when distressed--when the child is distressed, presumably? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Other methods have been developed for the assessment of patterns in children beyond the age of 18 months--Once again, I don't know for sure, but this seems like too much detail. Could it go in measurement or something? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I have a lot of complaints based on redundancy, excessive detail, and coverage of material that belongs in other articles (see WP:SUMMARY). Could you look through the whole article and try to address these issues throughout before I continue my review? delldot talk 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Coming along very nicely! I made some changes, rv me if I messed anything up. Two things:

  • What does "Can be very distresing" in the table mean? That the child's behavior can be distressing for a caregiver? delldot talk 12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually it means very distressing to see. Probably too complicated and better left out. There's quite a detailed description of disorganised attachment on the Attachment in children page. Fainites barley 17:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, you've been doing a good job identifying info that's covered elsewhere and can be removed. delldot talk 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You could force the child and caregiver cells to be the same width and/or height if you wanted. delldot talk 12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the childs behaviours ought to be bigger as attachment is really primarily about the childs behaviours.Fainites barley 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the history section. Its tricky as in a funny way - attachment theory is the history. Its the development of a certain type of thinking in what was then an innovative way. The whole process of ranging over all those fields.....Some people credit him with practically inventing evolutionary psychology. I wouldn't go that far - but the process and the various strands of thought are quite central. The theory itself is not quite as simple as people think. I'll try and summarise it though. Perhaps Frakn would like to take-over the writing of a History of Attachment Theory article as its his thing. I've created a new article by dumping the history section in it and am trying to cut down the content of this one.Fainites barley 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

True, I hadn't really considered that, I guess the other aspects of the theory would be dealt with at attachment in children? In that case, don't worry too much about it, it just gave me pause to see this massive section in a 100 KB article. But it's more important to have good content than to have your article look like every other article, so just do what you think makes the best article(s). I do think that shortening it and having a place for readers to go for more detail is a good idea though. delldot talk 13:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to do that - and then people can entertain themselves putting all the finer points in the History of attachment theory article.Fainites barley 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've cut it down quite a bit. The section I would like to summarise but am struggling with is the criticism section.Fainites barley 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Reduced overall by 5 whole kb's Fainites barley 16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Away for a week. Fainites barley 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

More PR comments

  • I think my big difficulty with this article is confusion in when I'm reading about attachment and when I'm reading about attachment theory. I feel like attachment itself is or should be covered elsewhere, but the article spends a lot of time explaining it. Summarizing is of course necessary, but detail should be left to other pages (if they do exist). delldot talk 03:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm tricky. The concept of attachment is not new but attachment theory as such uses it in a particular way and at the moment there are no real alternative or rival theories - apart from Freud I suppose. This article does need to make clear what is meant by attachment as used within attachment theory. There is an article called Attachment (psychology) but that babbles on about Bowlby and attachment theory too. Fainites barley 09:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added a few things to try and make it clear that the article is only talking about "attachment" as used within attachment theory. What bits did you think were too detailed? Fainites barley 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you've done a great job here. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
OK Fainites barley 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When first mentioning a person who's not really, really famous, I think it's good to introduce them a bit. So rather than Mary Ainsworth did this, try Developmental psychologist and co-developer of attachment theory Mary Ainsworth did this. Or something less verbose. I suggested mentioning how she relates to attachment theory so the reader understands why they are reading about her. delldot talk 03:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
OK Fainites barley 23:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
How about Developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth did this? Then you can get into the details in that section. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I did this in the lead. Do you mean in the patterns section?Fainites barley 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It became apparent there were more differences than similarities with imprinting and the analogy was dropped. - this seems like a non-sequitur. Maybe it should be explained further, but I'm thinking it might be integrated into another section or excised as overly detailed. delldot talk 03:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've rearranged it to make its relevence more apparant. What do you think?Fainites barley 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I still don't really get it. Imprinting hasn't been introduced in the article yet so I have to kind of guess what it is. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I could move it down into the history section with all the stuff about imprinting. Fainites barley 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • These approaches are mostly in the process of being evaluated. - Is in the process of necessary, or can it be cut to remove redundancy? delldot talk 03:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
OK Fainites barley 21:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More later. delldot talk 03:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

More

Very impressive work Fainites! I made some edits, you may want to look at my edit summaries for pointers. "Attachment" in attachment theory

  • I think the header "Attachment" in attachment theory will have to be changed--you're not supposed to repeat the article's title in headers, and the quotation marks seem awkward. I think you could get away with going back to just Attachment as long as you explain the context in the body. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Read up in the MOS on use-mention: sometimes quotation marks are used, sometimes italics. I'm not sure which is right, be sure to let me know when you figure it out. :P delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I've worked out that I can use it for attachment and attachment-figure where I'm describing what the word means. Thats mention not use. However, presumably I can't use it as I have done in the lead when talking about 'secure-base' and 'internal working models'. Pity, because I think it highlights that these are particular constructs with a particular meaning within the theory.Fainites barley 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Although it is usual for the principal attachment figure to be the biological mother, the role can be taken anybody who behaves in a "mothering" way over a consistent period of time, by which is meant to engage in lively social interaction with the infant and to respond readily to signals and approaches. - awkward. could convert to the role can be taken anybody who engages in lively social interaction with the infant and responds readily to signals and approaches over a consistent period. Again, period of time is usually redundant. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. The problem is - because Bowlby, being an old fashioned sort of chap and living in a pre-feminist world, mainly talked about mothering and mothers, alot of people have taken that to mean that babies can only attach to mothers - sometimes even only biological mothers. This is plainly not the case if one actually reads his books. He is making the point here about what he means by 'mothering' when he uses it; ie a type of behaviour rather than a particular biological entity. I hunted out that bit specially from "Attachment" because of extensive trouble from an editor claiming Bowlby said it was mothers only. Alot of student textbooks and web cheat sites make the same error. Fainites barley 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Done "of time". Fainites barley 11:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Choose a pronoun for "the infant" and "the child" (e.g. "him", "it", "him or her") and use it consistently. It kind of makes me twitch, but none is ideal. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I can't find inconsistent use. Where is this?Fainites barley 11:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Numbers and units should be separated with a non-breaking space (&nbsp;) so the units don't show up by themselves on the next line. See WP:NBSP. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier theories

DoneFainites barley 11:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Most early observers focused on the anxiety displayed by infants and toddlers - when was this? Could we have a ballpark time frame? Maybe integrate with the next sentence. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Done Fainites barley 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't make much progress through the article today. The new sections I looked at look good though. Let me know when you're ready for the next round. delldot talk 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A ballpark figure? During the first inning? Actually, I'd say from the '40s (Spitz's work) right up to Ainsworth's formulation of the Strange Situation, in the book published in 1978. The SS looks at reunion behavior in addition to separation anxiety. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Fainites barley 22:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

More comments

  • Flesh out the last two refs in the Further reading section (e.g. date, location, publisher, author...).
  • I did some tweaks to the table, feel free to undo them if you don't like them. I think left-aligning the text would look better.
I've left aligned - and also increased the child side for emphasis - as its the child who exhibits attachment behaviours.Fainites barley 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the article supposed to be in British or American English? e.g. behavior/behaviour organised/organized. I'm assuming British since Bowlby was, rv me if this is wrong. Would 'mentalization' be 'mentalisation'?
Its supposed to be British. Z's can be OK in BE too though not as much used as ss's - so I sort of left them where the author used them - like Fonagy. Even though Fonagy's British he uses 'z' in mentalization. I'll check though.Fainites barley 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the 'behaviours' and so on. Fainites barley 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Where the quotes or article titles are in American originally I've left them as american (eg Bretherton) - but the text is supposed to be british. Fainites barley 21:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, yeah, I should have mentioned that quotes and verbatim stuff like titles should be left alone. Yeah, I think I got most of it, but it might be worth another check when you're done with everything. delldot talk 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Bowlby's contemporary René Spitz proposed that "psychotoxic" results were brought about by inappropriate experiences of early care and made observations of separated children's grief. - this would read better if the shorter part were first, but it should only be changed to that if the causality that that would imply is true.
OK. Observation, though it seems obvious now, was a big thing of Spitz's. Fainites barley 21:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Define conspecific or use a different word in the sentence beginning Imprinting, a behaviour characteristic of some birds and a very few mammals...
I've wikt'd it. Fainites barley 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

  • Bowlby rejected psychoanalytical explanations for early infant bonds including the Freudian view "drive-theory", which he called the "cupboard-love" theory of relationships, and early object-relations theory. - possibly give a one-sentence explanation of drive theory, and explain why Bowlby called it cupboard love.
OK Fainites barley 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Behavioural development and attachment

  • Very short section, could it be integrated into another section?
I'm not sure about this section at all - or where it should go. A much larger version was put in by JCautilli who put in substantial sections on this point in a number of child development related pages - but I don't know enough about it. I'll ask Jean. Fainites barley 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the whole discussion of Gewirtz's work that was either part of this or related to it? That seems to me to be an essential part of the work on attachment. Am I just missing it, or was it yanked out at some time? In any case, this behavioral development piece is really in the nature of a criticism of or alternative to Bowlby's theory, so i think it ought to be folded into criticisms.71.125.151.141 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Gerwitz was definitely in there the other day. I'll look. Fainites barley 09:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Yup - in the second para. of Criticism from 50s -70s. Gerwitz was never part of this section. This was a separate section from JCautilli that was inappropriately large and definite about a particular strand of behaviourism having proved all there was to be proved about attachment. There was a similar chunk put on Child Development.Fainites barley 09:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see it-- sorry. Well, why not take this material and move it to "criticism from the 1990s"-- "Early criticism by behaviorists like Gewirtz, who said...., has more recently been followed by the suggestions of behaviorists such as..." Then follow with the statements summarized from Cautilli. Gewirtz has been pretty much ignored by Bowlby proponents, so I think it's legit to fold his work into this more recent material. Actually I think the behavioristic view deserves more space than it gets here, though not as much as JCautilli wanted to give it.Jean Mercer (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've put Gerwitz and the other behaviourist stuff together in a behaviourist paragraph. This will make it easier for any passing behaviourist to add more. Fainites barley 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Effects of changing times and approaches

  • Some authors have noted the connection of attachment theory with Western family and child care patterns - Citation needed. It's not ideal to use "some authors" because some is vague and uninformative, but I'm aware of the difficulty coming up with something more specific when the sources don't. Sometimes (d'oh!) I'm forced to use some, but it's always good to cite a source so you're not accused of WP:WEASEL.


E.g., Miyake, K., & Chen, S.-J. (1985). Infant temperament, mother's mode of interaction, and attachment in Japan: An interim report. In Bretherton, I., & Waters, E. (Eds.), Growing Points of Attachment Theory and Research.(pp. 276-297). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209).71.125.151.141 (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Criticism and controversy

  • Might want to integrate this short sentence into the next section (early criticism) because it's small by itself. This would also keep it consistent with other sections.
OK Fainites barley 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Early criticism

  • One critic questioned the suggestion that early attachment history (as it would now be called) had a lifelong impact. - it seems like here you could go ahead and state the person's name, so you could avoid the awkward, vague "one critic" (Same with the next sentence). If their objection is important enough to be mentioned in the article, maybe they're notable enough for their name to be mentioned. (Same with other text further down, e.g. "One discussant").
OK. I think I've caught them all. An odd side effect of this though is that if lots of authors say something they don't get named but if only one does, they do. Fainites barley 21:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Later criticism

  • A given function, such as achieving a sense of security, might be achieved in many different ways by children and the different but functionally comparable behaviours should be categorized as related to each other - two achieveds and differents right in a row sound repetitive. This is a difficult-to-understand sentence, maybe switching to active voice would help.
Done (I hope). Fainites barley 21:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethology

  • Ethological concepts are currently used in related work on robotic systems - I'm not sure how this sentence fits in with the rest of the paragraph or with attachment theory.
ok Fainites barley 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ref name="arkin" apparently has a dead link. Maybe you can find it through a web archive, else just remove the link. Why is there a google scholar search linked? This can't be used as a reference, you'd need to cite a particular source.
Removed. Fainites barley 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent criticism

  • I'm not sure about the use of Recent here - is this a problem with WP:DATED? Also, should this be integrated into the "Later criticisms" section?
I've re-titled the sections according to the periods of time to which the criticisms relate. It seems to come very much in chunks. Fainites barley 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinical practice (children)

  • I'm not sure what to do with the sentence beginning Approaches include "Watch, wait and wonder"... - it's just a list of names that don't make any sense by themselves. But including explanations of each one would probably be too long.
RemovedFainites barley 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

  • Don't know if you need to re-introduce attachment theory here, it was just discussed in the last para.
OK Fainites barley 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinical practice (adults)

  • Maybe change these headers to Clinical practice in adults and Clinical practice in children to avoid the parens?
OK Fainites barley 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I like to have a few words of introduction when you bring up a new name. e.g. instead of Peter Fonagy does such-and-such, you could say Therapist Peter Fonagy... or Psychologist Peter Fonagy.
OKFainites barley 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See also

  • It seems like it would be pretty easy to integrate these links into the text if you wanted to get rid of the pesky See also section.
Some done. I think the others will go when I expand the clinical uses section. (I know for FAC there should be no see also's for anything already linked in the text but I think this is a mistake. I think decent see also's of all relevent articles are jolly useful.)Fainites barley 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs

  • Minor cosmetic points, not important:
    • Some have p. before the page numbers and some don't.
Done.Fainites barley 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Some abbreviate journal titles, some don't.
Irritating isn't it? I've used the 'family' cites so they should all match - but I used diberri's tool for all the PMID'd ones. They're the ones that get abbreviated! It means either padding out diberri's or abbreviating the others. Fainites barley 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
If you do decide to do one or the other, I'd go for expanding Diberri's because I believe WP:CITESCI mentions it's useful to have the whole names of journals. delldot talk 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Fainites barley 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think page ranges are supposed to be two digits (e.g. 163–64, not 163–4), although I only know this on hearsay.
Done Fainites barley 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think ref name="FonThe uses the {{cite encyclopedia}} template wrong; I think title is for the article (article name is missing here). Look at how it displays in the refs.
Well there's a whole wodge of articles in the book that illustrate the point, mostly authored or co-authored by the editors so it was a bit difficult to think how to cite it. Fainites barley 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • A lot of book refs are missing page numbers, although some may not need them because they're supporting a general point.

Well that's all I have. I've been very picky, it's really a great article. I'm sure it's the most informative thing a layperson could find on the web. Great work Fainites, both in putting it together and in keeping up with my massive amounts of suggestions. Definitely let me know if you have any questions or want any further input. delldot talk 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks Delldot! Fainites barley 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I ought to point out quite a bit of the content was here already, though often unsourced, and Jean put in huge amounts.Fainites barley 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New Post

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Image copyright problem with Image:Lorenz.gif

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The image Image:Lorenz.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fainites barley 08:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Transmission of attachment style

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Have you seen this paper Jean? [1] Broadly speaking it concludes that the role of genetic factors in attachment disorganisation and attachment security was negligable - unlike temperament (77%). (Note 77%, not 80% - so it must be right).Fainites barley 08:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it--- and there are a couple of interesting things about it. One is that there's a more recent paper by a group including Helen Minnis and Robert Plomin, and they claim they demonstrate genetic effects on things including RAD (measured by Minnis's questionnaire). But (2) my question is, can any ordinary test of attachment be applied to twins, who are generally together most of the time and are likely to be attached to each other as well as to a caregiver? The twin method that works so well to determine genetic factors in other matters may just not be a thing you can do with attachment, unless the twins were separated and adopted by different families, which was not the case here.

Incidentally, twinning also has an ethnic component, being somewhat more frequent in people of African ancestry-- but i don't know whether that involves differences between MZ and DZ cases. Twinning also involves premature birth and relatively low birth weight in most cases-- so can we generalize from twin studies to singletons? Maybe not. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for science, but not for twins, separating twins for adoption is probably a thing of the past.Fainites barley 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi I read the Attachment entry and was dismayed that no mention of Patrician Crittenden's Dynamic Maturational Model is provided. She has recently released an important book that every attachment researcher or clinician should know about. "Raising Parents: Attachment, parenting and child safety. This needs to be rectified. Best wishes. 156.34.234.94 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Nicole Letourneau, Canada Research Chair in Child Development.

You're quite right that there should be some mention of Crittenden in this article. Its something thats been raised before. I don't actually have a copy of her latest book as yet so feel free to put something together to go in. Anybody can edit. I can help with formatting, refs, style etc if you're not used to Wiki. I look forward to your contributions.Fainites barley 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What about this?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

[2] Fainites barley 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re this edit "who worked alongside leading Scottish psychologist Catherine Patterson, and found his inspiration from some of her theories", removed by the editor - is there any source for this or was it just a test? Fainites barleyscribs 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re this edit in the RAD section:

"The utility of such a diagnosis is under question, as well as the relibability and validity of the diagnostic criteria and two subtypes. It can be argued that using a diagnostic label implies that there is a disease process within an individual, rather than dysfunction within a relationship, which may lead to an undue focus on "curing" or changing the child. Therefore some researchers and clinicians feel it would be more helpful to consider these kind of patterns as representative of chronic developmental trauma, relating this to PTSD, to anchor the cause of the problem in past experience rather than biology. "

its been removed by an IP for a lack of citation. However, its interesting information. Can the editor please let us know the source. Thanks. Fainites barleyscribs 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NB. This -RAD has been criticised as being under-researched, poorly understood and, by focussing on the childs aberrant behaviour, failing to recognise the relational aspect of attachment disorders given that children often have multiple attachment relationships and may exhibit disorded behaviour with only one caregiver. is already in the article.Fainites barleyscribs 09:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Behaviours

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've just reread the article with fresh eyes, Jean, and realised that what it needs is a section describing actual attachment behaviours. Fainites barleyscribs 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Of course: a picture in words. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll get Roundtoit.Fainites barleyscribs 09:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Schore

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think Schore ought to be mentioned in the developments section, even though its "not proven" as it's a significant current area of discussion and research.Fainites barleyscribs 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Word count

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

8,200 odd of readable prose. 30 - 50 kilobytes is 6,000 to 10,000 words according to WP:SIZE, therefore approx 40,000+ kilobytes readable prose.Fainites barleyscribs 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You know about this tool too? delldot ∇. 00:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No! Cool.Fainites barleyscribs 08:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Means my math's all wrong though. I worked out 8,200 words on Word.Fainites barleyscribs

Thoughts

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Lead's too long. Consider taking out detail to leave for the body. e.g. consider changing

Developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth, an important figure in the formulation and development of attachment theory, undertook substantial research which underpinned the basic concepts, introduced the concept of the "secure base" and developed a theory of a number of attachment patterns or "styles" in infants in which distinct characteristics were identified; these were secure attachment, avoidant attachment, anxious attachment and, later, disorganised attachment.

to

Research by developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth underpinned the basic concepts, introduced the concept of the "secure base" and developed a theory of a number of attachment patterns in infants: secure attachment, avoidant attachment, anxious attachment and, later, disorganised attachment.

In the history section:

William Blatz, a Canadian psychologist and teacher Mary Ainsworth, was among the first...

is this supposed to be 'teacher of'?

She analysed the dozens of studies undertaken in the field and concluded that the basic assertions of the maternal deprivation hypothesis were sound although the controversy continued

Does this mean that she concluded this although the controversy continued, or that the controversy continued although she concluded it? If the latter, how about 'however, the controversy continued'?

Lots of long sentences, maybe do a check for run-ons.

More in a bit. delldot ∇. 00:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Make sure possessives have the apostrophes in the right places: one parent's responses (singular possesive), two parents' responses (plural possesive).

Actually, I finished the history section and don't have any more comments. It looks good, I like it with the criticism section integrated. It's more cohesive, you're not having to go back and repeat the history to give context in the criticism section. I think you could call the section just 'History', not 'History and reception'; you'd expect how it was received to be part of the discussion of the theory's history.

The article looks good! It flows logically and is easy to read for the most part. Still, I'd ask someone who owes you a favor to go through and copy edit, there are still some grammar errors and difficult sentences. delldot ∇. 00:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Delldot. I've addressed quite a bit and have been trawling through for run-on-on-on-sentences and wordiness. I've also asked the lovely Michael Devore to copy edit.Fainites barleyscribs 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference RaoLyketsos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attachment_theory/Archive_3&oldid=1087958578"