Talk:Attachment theory/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Extended content
|
|---|
|
References
|
Wade.profe, Re: your recent addition to the Significance of patterns section—It looks well-sourced, but the phrasing and word choice make it very difficult to follow, which is why I suggested posting it on the talkpage for input when I reverted your edit the first time. I'm moving it here and collapsing it above temporarily for now, so other editors can give input before re-inserting it. It would help to know which page numbers the information came from. I have access to the full text of all the sources through my library at work, so I tried to Ctrl F some keywords, but I couldn't figure out on my own which parts you were pulling from the different sources. Knowing that would help me be able to offer some suggestions for wording. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 01:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wade.profe: Just FYI, because this is a featured article (the highest level of quality on Wikipedia), any change is going to be subject to very careful standards (more than on most other pages). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
References
I couldn't explain exactly what/why I changed the references in the edit summary because of the character limit... This is how it used to be until a few minutes ago: The majority of references were listed under Attachment theory#Notes and then under Attachment theory#References, there was a combination of (1)books that were mentioned in the article, but not cited and (2)a few books that were cited in the article, but referenced several different pages. In the 2nd case, the full citation was in the Reference section and only the author, year, page number was in Notes section and didn't link to the full citation. For most of them, that probably would have been clear enough, but we've cited 2 different editions of Attachment and Loss with the same year, so I was confused about what the difference was and decided to figure out something more clear to do with that one and then after I did that, I figured I should make it uniform, so now all of the references to multiples pages from the same book use a "mix of footnotes with shortened footnotes". This is from the help page as an example:
A mix of {{fnote}} and {{sfnote}} with the full reference in the first footnote and shortened footnotes for subsequent references.
| Markup | Renders as |
|---|---|
The brontosaurus is thin at one end.<ref>{{cite book |last=Elk |first=Anne |title=[[Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses]] |date=November 16, 1972a |ref=harv |page=5}}</ref> Then it becomes much thicker in the middle.{{sfn|Elk|1972a|p=6}}
==Notes==
{{reflist}}
|
|
This is just an FYI so people would know what they're looking at with my last edit since it seems like it was big, but it really wasn't. Now the Reference section only has a few books in it that were mentioned in the article, not directly cited. I least I think that's true of all of them. There might be 1-2 random ones, but it was hard to tell, so I left them. And all of the citations are in the Notes section. —PermStrump(talk) 05:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attachment theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013210209/http://www.zerotothree.org/site/DocServer/AttachmentandFosterCare.pdf?docID=2542 to http://www.zerotothree.org/site/DocServer/AttachmentandFosterCare.pdf?docID=2542
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The Real John Bowlby and the Real Attachment Theory
There are a number of fundamental errors in this article and the fact that Wikipedia guidelines prohibit citing the original source has compounded the problem.
John Bowlby's Theory of Attachment was developed as a direct result of the experiences of World War II: small children in England were sent to the countryside away from the Nazi bombing of cities (especially London) and their numbness, trauma, grief and distress were overwhelming, impossible to ignore--also children throughout Europe separated from their parents during and after that war were found in similar emotional circumstances. That is, Attachment Theory grew out of very wide-spread, direct experience, of tragic real-life circumstances that would be unethical to try to replicate in scientific experiments.
Bowlby was not just a psychologist and psychiatrist--he was an interdisciplinary thinker and to reduce Attachment to psychology leaves out essential parts of the whole.
Bowlby depended on careful direct observation--his own and that of others, but more recent discoveries in ethology and `concerning brain development and oxytocin as a bonding hormone (see Prairie Voles) support his work.
In his first volume, Attachment, (of his 3-volume work on Attachment, Separation and Loss) Bowlby repeatedly cites attachment behavior in mammals (and not just primates) a clear indication that he was addressing social behavior found in all mammals. He also emphasized that while some mammals, such as herd animals (from elephants to horses and cattle), walk shortly after birth and can follow their mother immediately, other mammals (such as rats, cats and dogs) are blind at birth and helpless. They can't follow their mother until later and must depend on their mother to come to them, just as newborn human babies must do until they are able to walk, so that infant attachment in humans begins long before 6 months.
Mammals genetically are social animals and begin developing a social bond from birth: in vol. 1 Bowlby notes behavior observed shortly after birth.
He also notes a similar division in behavior in birds--who have a more primitive and immediate form of attachment called imprinting. Ground-nesting birds such as chickens, ducks, geese, etc. must be able to follow their mother from birth, whereas tree-nesting birds can't follow their parents but must depend on their parents to come to them, bringing food to the nest until they develop feathers and can fly.
Also--attachment serves 3 purposes: for protection by staying close to their mother (or herd), for food (nursing or food gathering) and staying close to adults to learn social behavior and survival skills through observing and interacting with adults.
John Bowlby was a genius, but he also learned from his own experience. Born in a wealthy family and raised in his first years by a nanny; when she was dismissed when he was 4 years old he grieved her loss as if he had lost his mother. This experience sensitized him to attachment issues and allowed him to describe them.
- I cited Bowlby years ago for this WP article only to have it rejected. What to do about that?!
Anna Freud was involved in the group care of children during World War II and wrote on those experiences and observations.
Information on mammals and birds is readily available in books, the internet and probably numerous WP articles.
205.167.120.201 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC). I am Margaret9mary and have written previously for this article but can't remember my password.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attachment theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824051123/http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/rad.pdf to http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/rad.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Cultural differences in attachment
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
This is my first attempt at working in wikipedia. I am in a class covering the social and cultural aspects of human development. One of the requirements of this course is to make a contribution to the wikipedia site. Our group has chosen to explore cultural differences of attachment, and we were looking to make contributions to attachment theory page. I am starting at this talk page section to see if this is an area we could add to the page. Thanks. SMX242 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)SMX242
Hi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhododendrites I saw you had reverted my contributions. I am attempting to add some neutral information on attachments in non-Western parts of the world to make a contribution to the page. Hoping you can help me with some feedback. Thanks!SMX242 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)SMX242
- @SMX242: Thanks for leaving a message here. A few things:
- Would you mind telling me what school you're at? There are many resources, including printed brochures, interactive training, and full-time staff, dedicated to supporting instructors and students contributing to Wikipedia for a class assignment. I'd love to get some information to your instructor about those resources.
- Something to keep in mind: editing psychology articles can be particularly difficult because the standards for sourcing are somewhat different not only from the rest of Wikipedia but from common expectations in the field. This is a handout for psychology students that may be helpful (one of the resources I mentioned above).
- This article comes with baggage -- and it's for this reason that I reverted your edits. For more than ten years a dedicated advocate of DDP [ Dyadic developmental psychotherapy ] has persistently tried to use Wikipedia to promote himself and the therapy, adding praise/citations, and removing criticism (e.g. more often via the attachment therapy article and related) using countless accounts. This doesn't seem like what you're doing, though, so I apologize for my kneejerk revert. That said, because this is a Featured Article, it will be subject to much more scrutiny than others. I'll leave a message on the psychology wikiproject to get another opinion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Thanks for this thoughtful response and helpful clarification. I'm the instructor of the course (University of New Hampshire), and for many years have involved my students in making contributions to Wikipedia that broaden the cultural perspectives of psychology, education, and other articles. This adds to the neutrality of the articles, but sometimes we get pushback. We do a lot of in-class vetting to make sure that the contributions have lots of support. However, as you may know, American Psychology is rather ethnocentric (happy to share cites here, but this isn't really controversial) so finding secondary sources on topics is occasionally a challenge. It sounds like your reverts were for a different reason (i.e., the DDP advocacy), which I understand and appreciate. Thanks for the offer to send materials and resources; I'd be interested to take a look and incorporate them into the course.
- On attachment theory in particular, there is a growing and widespread consensus about how culturally narrow the original theory was conceived and about how few of the world's communities the theory describes. A new edited volume is coming out in 2018 on this topic, in addition to the many that already exist. Perhaps we could revisit this page with another semester's students and keep building this cultural dimension of the page. Drewdeecopp (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Long quotation in lead
It should be recognized "even sensitive caregivers get it right only about fifty per cent of the time. Their communications are either out of synch, or mismatched. There are times when parents feel tired or distracted. The telephone rings or there is breakfast to prepare. In other words, attuned interactions rupture quite frequently. But the hallmark of a sensitive caregiver is that the ruptures are managed and repaired."
For a quote of this length (is it too long to begin with?), the attribution needs to be direct and up front, and not just buried in a cite at the end. — MaxEnt 00:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Student Evaluation
Hello! I am a student at the University of Alabama working on article evaluations on topics in either relational communication or interpersonal communication. I just wanted to say that I found the information presented here to be both helpful and interesting. Part of our evaluation is to suggest a possible addition(s) for the articles we are reading. For this one, I certainly feel like it covers most of the principles and ideas surrounding attachment theory. My question as a reader might be about what research (if any) has been done recently to either back up the different theories or ideas presented, or contradict those ideas? There may not be a lot of research currently being conducted, but I think a section explaining what's happening now when it comes to expanding theories around attachment theory or what needs to be done in the future would be really interesting. Thanks!--Brand72093 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
FAR needed
This article passed WP:FAC ten years ago, and is no longer in compliance with WP:WIAFA. The lead, in particular, does not comply with WP:LEAD (see the version that passed FAC). The article is over-quoted, and the TOC is no longer focused. There is a good deal of uncited text. A consistent citation style is not used. If the article cannot be brought to FA standards, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
More application of theory on adult needed
Hi, I am a student from Georgetown University in CCT program, and we are peer reviewing some articles. This is the detailed explanation for attachment theory, with clear definition, case studies and related research. The article mainly focused on the children and how theory can apply to them, including the history, the transaction from children to teenagers and the practical applications. However, I found out the article has less information of how the theory apply to adults. The article has few paragraph for Attachment styles in adults, and I think you could look for more styles or evidence in this part, such as how theory can be used in marketing and business area. Maybe you could refer to the following section, crime. That is also the application of theory in adults and it is like the attachment to the main theory, with history, and other detailed introductions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaozhhan (talk • contribs) 02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Peer review
Hi Yibo, I hope you are doing well on building this Wiki page. It is a well-written article as it is rated as a B class article. Based on my view, there are some sections that you could improve on. First, when I viewed the content, I got confused by the title of “crime”. I understood “crime” meant that the theory has been applied in the discipline of criminology. I think it would be better if the term could be clarified in the content. Also, I think it would be interesting to add sources about the theory’s development in the era that AI has been a flourishing field if there is any study that has been conducted. I hope these ideas would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhanh (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rimbaud1230. Peer reviewers: Zhaozhhan, Ruhanh, HebaTea.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Attachment patterns: Anxious-avoidant and dismissive-avoidant attachment (question of terminology)
In the section I refer to, the dismissive-avoidant attachment style is never referred to by name. I understand this to be because the two patterns are essentially the same attachment style, with anxious-avoidant being the childhood version and dismissive-avoidant being the adult version. I think this should be clarified in the article, not least because many sources (which would not be of suitable quality for Wikipedia's use, but to which our readers may have been exposed) either simply the styles and use one of the sets (child or adult) to refer to both children's and adults' attachment styles, or, alternatively, they conflate anxious-avoidant with fearful-avoidant, which, while linguistically understandable, does lead me to believe that these individuals should not be writing articles about attachment styles. While I believe I understand why this section of our article only discusses the anxious-avoidant style, I think it should be made clearer within that section, such that this issue of terminology is made immediately evident to and understandable by laypersons. I am leaving this as a talk page section as I am not quite confident enough to make the edit myself and I do not have sources to hand, so I thank in advance whoever does actually make this edit (assuming that I have not made any serious mistakes in my assumptions). Anditres (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Following before Crawling??
In the "Behavior" section it has infants "following" at 2-6 months. But other source say that most infants are not crawling at 6 months, so how can they be following?Tadamsmar (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking good
I think the article looks great right now! Mrodge12 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Mrodge12 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Attachment in adults sections
I feel this whole section needs a bit of a re-write.
For the dismissive-avoidant attachment, The large paragraph citing only one source covers a great many topics very broadly that could be more specific and widely cited. My suggestion would be to whittle down what the current primary source covers as more precise information/sources are used to extrapolate usefully on some of the research and ideas represented. I plan on slowly working to improve this section specifically.
Both and anxious-preoccupied and fearful-avoidant sections under adult attachment also need to be reworked. Citations are too few, missing, and not high quality. All of the information is vague, and in general I feel a disservice is done for users seeking more information using this source. I will be working on this but it will be slow and bit-by-bit, I hope others join in.RosieTime (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MatthewR02 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by AzulB.13 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Smiling Japanase Children
I wanted to ask why is there a picture of some japanase school children smiling. I fail to see why it is in the article Theonoentiendo (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)