Talk:Attachment (psychology)

Does this article add any additional value beyond what is written in the Attachment Theory article? Can we merge the two? Steve carlson 06:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge away! 132.239.194.233 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however, the final page needs to focus more on 'attachment theory' and not the concept of 'maternal deprivation'.

These 2 ideas are not the same.

Kingsley Miller KingsleyMiller 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.236.243 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words "bonding" and "attachment" are not used to indicate the same referent. "Bonding" is a term used to describe the fairly quick development of an adult's positive attitude toward a young child, usually soon after birth; "attachment" refers to a child's development of specific attitudes toward familiar people, with resulting emotional and behavioral differentiation between familiar and unfamiliar persons, and to the later development of related social attitudes. In neither case (bonding or attachment) do the two parties (child and adult) have the same attitudes toward each other, so the chemical analogy is really not appropriate.Jean Mercer 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This came out sounding a lot crankier than i meant it to! I do object to the "bonding" or "bond" term no matter what age group it's applied to, just because of the chemical/ Epoxy analogy. One of the essential aspects of human social relations is their almost invariable asymmetry.Jean Mercer 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page doesn't cover anything that isn't covered in more depth in attachment theory - apart from the odd notion that 'attachment' is being replaced by the more chemically correct 'bonding. Even if this is true, surely it belongs on the attachment theory page aswell - with perhaps a link to various Bonding articles. Merge I say! Fainites ^barley 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If merging, please note edits respectfully made to author and book misinformation (Miller/Rodgers) and addition of book citation for same made 8/18/08. Additional opportunities for citing and references are plentiful! Kad3927 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge. --Jcbutler (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there need not be two articles unless it is being suggested by anyone there is some form of "attachment (psychology)" approach/understanding not derived from attachment theory as understood. In other words, is there an article on attachment that isn't about attachment theory as derived from Bowlby? I don't know the answer to this. The only sentence in this article currently on a non-Bowlby perspective is the one that says The 2001 book The Ontogeny of Human Bonding Systems by research psychiatrist Warren B. Miller and academic psychologist Joseph L. Rodgers offers an alternative approach to Bowlby, based on social bonding theory.[2] but whether this has any merit I can't say. Fainites ^barley 20:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Miller/Rodgers book incorporates some ideas from Bowlby and also from other areas. If the book were to be sited in text in the merge, it would belong in the 'Developments' section, under 'Effects of changing times and approaches.' But, 'Further reading' would really be most appropriate. Kad3927 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Apart from the Millers/Rogers bit there's not much that isn't already on the Attachment theory page although this stub does highlight the "goal-directed" aspect rather neatly. The details about which of Freuds papers and Darwins stuff Bowlby used might go beter on the History of attachment theory page. If nobody objects I'll have a go tomorrow.Fainites ^barley 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Miller book to further reading on the Attachment theory page. There is now nothing in this article not covered in that article.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]