i am left with unease, as we used to blame unloving mothers for schizophrenia . I think that attachment theory describes people very well, i do not know of any randomized trial where children were randomly parented in different styles and there were distinct outcomes. Nature AND Nurture seem to have important input in to how children turn out. Stop blaming our parents and work with what we have.
50
Whatever did we do before Freud or Gestalt to guide us. Before them, we raised children who survived to adulthood generation to generation only to say the same old tired psychological philosophy from Freud: blame it on mommy or daddy--or even better, blame it on both.
20
As a researcher in this area, I would say more optimistically, that attachment is open to change. In particular, in adolescence and early adulthood, one good relationship - with a teacher, a lover, a friend - can move you from insecure to secure. And once securely attached, you are very unlikely to move back into the insecure category again.
48
So it would be crucial for someone in trying to figure out the "emotional stuff" of their partner, to take a good analytical look at the parent-child relationships.
It took many years for me to figure out that I was not chasing down a mommy-surrogate in my love relationships - like so many of my male contemporaries were doing. Looking for mom-surrogates to coddle and care for them, to do the mom-tasks they seemed incapable of doing. (from doing their laundry, to feeding and over-praising them for inane accomplishments, etc) Or that I was deliberately refusing to be a daddy-stand-in for the women who might have shown an interest in me. Who became befuddled when I didn't act like they were "my little-girl". Taking over the daddy-tasks in their lives.
Once I figured out my personal avoidance's, I was better able to watch my behaviors as I entered into a new relationship. And adjust as needed. But I never became a Daddy-surrogate, and I didn't end up with a mommy-stand-in. Just two humans, now adults, in love seeking to support and provide aid to the other. To be unique partners, not surrogates for others.
It took many years for me to figure out that I was not chasing down a mommy-surrogate in my love relationships - like so many of my male contemporaries were doing. Looking for mom-surrogates to coddle and care for them, to do the mom-tasks they seemed incapable of doing. (from doing their laundry, to feeding and over-praising them for inane accomplishments, etc) Or that I was deliberately refusing to be a daddy-stand-in for the women who might have shown an interest in me. Who became befuddled when I didn't act like they were "my little-girl". Taking over the daddy-tasks in their lives.
Once I figured out my personal avoidance's, I was better able to watch my behaviors as I entered into a new relationship. And adjust as needed. But I never became a Daddy-surrogate, and I didn't end up with a mommy-stand-in. Just two humans, now adults, in love seeking to support and provide aid to the other. To be unique partners, not surrogates for others.
33
This this all reminds me of the hypotheses prevelant when I got my medical and psychiatric training almost 50 years ago. We were lectured about "the schizophrenogenic mother" causing schizophrenia, and the "ice-box mother" causing autism. We have since found out that the causes of these still-mysterious ailments are mostly organic and developmental, and that the behaviors we thought we observed in the unfortunate mothers were reactive to their child's behaviors instead.
Attachment and bonding are more hard-wired than diadic, but of course a disturbed or depressed parent is likely handle this developmental task more poorly than the norm. The old saying applies: there is no perfect way to raise a child, but many good-enough ways, and perhaps a few wrong ones.
Attachment and bonding are more hard-wired than diadic, but of course a disturbed or depressed parent is likely handle this developmental task more poorly than the norm. The old saying applies: there is no perfect way to raise a child, but many good-enough ways, and perhaps a few wrong ones.
54
I'm surprised this article neglects to make one very important distinction. Attachment theory is not the same as "attachment parenting.". Babywearing, cosleeping, etc, are parenting trends and do not determine secure attachment (though they definitely can work for plenty of families). Dr. Sears and his cohort have latched onto the term as a way to make their parenting advice sound scientific. In fact, like many natural parenting advocates, Dr. Sears is a conservative Christian whose wife quit working to raise his 8 children and who believes all women should stay in their proper place: the home. I'm not being reactionary; this is stated quite plainly in his books. At any rate, I've seen AP do a lot of damage to overworked mothers and it's a shame to equate secure attachment (which IS scientifically validated) with what amounts to at best, a fad, and at worse, quackery.
159
I'm a 54 year old single woman. I've struggled with forming attachments with friends & potential partners my entire life. I'm currently in treatment for my eating disorder. I'm fortunate to have this time to work on myself and look hard at my life and the dysfunctional patterns that have caused my own pain and suffering. It hit me like a ton of bricks the day after Christmas that there was something different and lacking in how I relate to other people. So I Googled "people who have problems bonding with other people" and I found a name for the problem that I have and it is called attachment disorder. My current therapist and asked me in a session in the middle of December just before she went on vacation if I have ever had friendships or relationships where I felt I truly trusting of the other person and felt a bond with them and had a history with them. Was I ever able to be truly vulnerable with someone? I said no. That moment is forever etched in my mind and led to my "aha" moments and realization. From December 25th until about January 5th I was paralyzed with grief. I felt the free-floating anxiety I would frequently feel over my lifetime when I thought about how alone I was and how fearful I was about committing to relationships. I had big pieces of understanding of myself over the years but blamed myself and frequently felt shame. Attachment disorder is not some pop psychology term --it is real and it hurts inside like no other pain I've evet felt.
113
Thank you. This article is an eye opener for me. At age 65 it's time to look back how I became who I am. Again thank for the opener, the tool.
22
The most amazing thing is that you don't really know if you've done anything right until your infants or toddlers aren't that any more. I remember thinking the fact that my first child, in particular, seemed inclined to fall apart if I left him temporarily in unfamiliar daycare, at preschool, etc., meant that I wasn't doing something right. What a revelation to read today that it meant he was secure - with me! Thirty years out, I can tell you he is one of the most secure, self-reliant people I know. More than infancy contributed to who he has become, but - thank you for this retroactive validation that my early instincts were ok!
14
This describes my clients to a "T"- I represent parents and children in child protection court and parental rights terminations. The interactions between troubled parents and children, parents overwhelmed by drug abuse and mental illness, are so foreign to the lawyers and judges' personal experience that, often, everyone in the courtroom has to be educated about bonding and attachment.
The guilt felt by the parents is as real as the confusion and pain their behavior caused to their children. They are good people, but crippled by their own upbringing and resulting mental illness, depression, self medication, and violent anger, and the cycle continues. My best hope is to promote family planning- every child should be a wanted, planned child.
The guilt felt by the parents is as real as the confusion and pain their behavior caused to their children. They are good people, but crippled by their own upbringing and resulting mental illness, depression, self medication, and violent anger, and the cycle continues. My best hope is to promote family planning- every child should be a wanted, planned child.
51
I had a baby who was impossible to soothe. She was never happy as an infant, never smiled at me, never snuggled in, although I had to constantly hold her. I got no positive feedback, and my back and hips were a mess from carrying her 24/7. I had another child previously, so I knew positive feedback was possible and beautiful. The crabby baby turned into a toddler and young child who had daily and hours-prolonged violent tantrums. We went to multiple doctors, started her in therapy, and I quit my career to work with her. Today in her early teens, she fits the category of quite unattached, morphing into sullen behavior and often flouting the rules, choosing friends who are mean to her. We continue to get outside help, and I do backbends to give her what she needs, although I often feel exhausted by the lack of positive feedback. Yes, our daughter has extraordinary struggles. And no, we're not perfect parents. But sometimes you get what you get, and all the love and help in the world will not straighten a crooked tree. When I read articles like this -- that boil attachment theory down to "its really the parents' fault after all" -- I, in turn, boil with anger and resentment. What a way to tell me it's not worth trying another day, because I'll just get blamed anyway! I'm going back to bed.
172
Maybe one of the reasons that attachment theory is gaining traction is that previous theories, unnamed in this article, just haven't panned out very well. So maybe we will have 20 years of attachment theory being taught and practiced before it too becomes consigned to the dust heap of failed explainations for why humanity is such a squirrelly mess of contradictions.
11
Smartphones are no where near as damaging to an infant's attachment to caregivers as the lack of maternal/paternal leave. If anything, the dreaded smartphone may improve attchment because it allows for more flexible work schedule.
30
Attachment theory isn't black and white, or all/nothing. It's about forming a safe, dependable attachment, responding to the child's real needs in a timely and reliable manner. It is so often misunderstood or distorted to mean that the parent has to be overly attuned, anticipate the child's needs... It isn't that at all.
13
Our 21st-century techno-centric world increases the need for secure attachment skills in early childhood development. Back in the 60's Marshall McLuhan predicted the "global village" and the need for 'high touch' to accompany the tsunami of 'high tech'. Our technology has outpaced our sociology and the results are increasing alienation and hostility. If we are not careful, we might actually elect an "insecure disorganized child/adult who will display both anxious and avoidant behaviors in an illogical and erratic manner."
38
Let's be honest, the Times and the academy will never publish anything that finds that stay-at-home mothers are better for children, and this article does back flips to avoid even implying that that could be true. Take for example, the article on working mothers from 2015 (Miller, 5-15-15, "Mounting Evidence of Advantages for Children of Working Mothers") which summarizes the research: "In a new study of 50,000 adults in 25 countries, daughters of working mothers completed more years of education, were more likely to be employed and in supervisory roles and earned higher incomes." Of course, that finding is banal and tautological – children of working parents are more likely to work. Any current social scientist, no matter their politics, knows full well that the study included measures of more important and interesting variables such as: self-esteem, general anxiety, sense of empowerment, emotional stability, and life satisfaction. That data collection may even have included “attachment style.” Results for those measures lie in a dark file drawer somewhere - no one will publish them or any other results like them. For faculty member to do so would be professional suicide. The editor and reviewers could have asked about unreported variables – but they wouldn’t.
Similarly, this article on “attachment theory” avoids any implication that stay-at-home mothers are better for children. That is verboten… but similarly obvious.
Similarly, this article on “attachment theory” avoids any implication that stay-at-home mothers are better for children. That is verboten… but similarly obvious.
25
The attachment idea was introduced by Bowlby as a way of describing behavior -- a way to label something one observes, like seeing a child take things that aren't his and calling him a "bad boy". Bowlby saw children and parents orienting to each other in particular ways and described this using the term attachment. Along the way between then and now psychologists did what they've done so much of since the early twentieth century: they waved their conceptual magic wand and suddenly attachment was reiied, becoming a brain process that is a core part of personality. This is bad philosophy deployed in the service of profit: lots of mental health professionals make a lot of money talking attachment as though it was a real thing. It is a theoretical concept, not a real thing. There is no evidence at all that brains are stamped in the way described in this article. Attachment is a simplistic explanation for complex social/mental/cultural phenomena.
10
Enjoyed this article. This is what psychiatry should be about instead of trying to find the next drug cocktail that can make your mood better.
16
"It’s not so great if you are one of the 40 percent to 50 percent of babies who, a meta-analysis of research indicates, are insecurely attached because their early experiences were suboptimal . . . 'Then you have to earn your security,' Dr. Steele said, by later forming secure attachments that help you override your flawed internal working model."
Easier said than done. Wishing for secure attachments doesn't make it so. Presumably, an insecurely attached adult will need therapy to unlearn self-defeating attitudes and behaviors and learn new ones.
Unfortunately, as this article demonstrates, the attachment movement is rushing at warp speed in the direction of preventative therapy aimed at new parents. Why? Selling self-help to new moms is where the money is. But where is the reparative therapy for adults whose interpersonal relationships are stunted and unsatisfying because of insecure attachment?
Also, this is not the first time that attachment theory has been popularized. In the first wave, the focus was on adults' romantic relationships. Why? Advice to the lovelorn is probably as profitable as advice on how to raise children.
Consequently, there is a dearth of resources for adults whose formative years left them insecurely attached and whose interpersonal, relationships languish as a result. If up to half of us have attachment problems, the therapeutic community is leaving a lot of money on the table by focusing excessively on child rearing and romance.
Easier said than done. Wishing for secure attachments doesn't make it so. Presumably, an insecurely attached adult will need therapy to unlearn self-defeating attitudes and behaviors and learn new ones.
Unfortunately, as this article demonstrates, the attachment movement is rushing at warp speed in the direction of preventative therapy aimed at new parents. Why? Selling self-help to new moms is where the money is. But where is the reparative therapy for adults whose interpersonal relationships are stunted and unsatisfying because of insecure attachment?
Also, this is not the first time that attachment theory has been popularized. In the first wave, the focus was on adults' romantic relationships. Why? Advice to the lovelorn is probably as profitable as advice on how to raise children.
Consequently, there is a dearth of resources for adults whose formative years left them insecurely attached and whose interpersonal, relationships languish as a result. If up to half of us have attachment problems, the therapeutic community is leaving a lot of money on the table by focusing excessively on child rearing and romance.
6
Early childhood experiences can be a determinant of adult behvavior, but what about genetic factors? How much is contributed by social conditioning and peer group influence? What about the role of media and advertising that promotes consumerism as the only means of self expression?
Why is it that the comments of readers present a better and nuanced picture than the writer of this piece on "attachment theory" ?
Why is it that the comments of readers present a better and nuanced picture than the writer of this piece on "attachment theory" ?
17
This is exactly the kind of oversimplification that gives attachment a bad rap. There is an incredible story to this theory, and to our humanity that cannot be captured in a wikipedia-style summary. What a shame. I have written the beginning of the more complex tale (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/attachment-theory-motherhood-c-v-r.html), and am working on a book to begin to flesh it out.
Ainsworth and Bowlby and parents and children deserve better.
I wonder why the NYT decided to run this now? The smart phone reference? It would be nice if that were fleshed out, but alas.
Ainsworth and Bowlby and parents and children deserve better.
I wonder why the NYT decided to run this now? The smart phone reference? It would be nice if that were fleshed out, but alas.
10
Implied in this article is a concept of a norm, that of secure attachment; yet if 40 to 50 percent of people exhibit some form of insecure attachment, that would suggest that it is as much of a norm as its opposite. So what is the foundation for asserting that "secure attachment" is the norm of human development? And who has established this foundation? I ask not because of cynicism but because recent events suggest that so many of the "norms" of recent times are being rejected by a very large proportion of the population, much to certain people's surprise; have we not done a good job of establishing a basis for our principles? Have we assumed our righteousness to the point where it needs no explanation or justification?
13
It's Catch-22. The parents who raise troubled children are always the ones who insist it was not their fault, while any parent who takes full responsibility for how their offspring turned out will have well-balanced adult children.
It is all over by the time the child is two. We have all watched parents seemingly doing everything possible to make their children emotionally stunted and even unbalanced.
And, of course, beware of even the mildest suggestion to that parent that perhaps there might be another way to deal with the situation or be prepared to be yourself attacked. That itself says all that needs to be said about the parent's personality.
Leaving aside severe mental illnesses, it is a sad fact that for most troubled adults, no one around when they were children is at all surprised at how poorly they turned out.
It is all over by the time the child is two. We have all watched parents seemingly doing everything possible to make their children emotionally stunted and even unbalanced.
And, of course, beware of even the mildest suggestion to that parent that perhaps there might be another way to deal with the situation or be prepared to be yourself attacked. That itself says all that needs to be said about the parent's personality.
Leaving aside severe mental illnesses, it is a sad fact that for most troubled adults, no one around when they were children is at all surprised at how poorly they turned out.
14
There seems to be a fair amount of simplistic cause and effect, mommy did this too much or didn’t do that enough, as if there’s a formula for the right amount of attachment, which completely ignores individual differences in children. They aren’t born blank slates.
Bowlby and Ainsworth, the psychologists who developed the theory were Freudian in the main, which tells you there is a tendency to overestimate the influence of mommy in ways that have pretty much been debunked.
Ainsworth’s ‘scientific validation’ was one study she did herself on the theory she and Bowlby developed. That’s hardly validation, more like Coke paying for ‘studies’ showing sugar isn’t the obesity culprit.
Some parents are obsessed with operating on their kids, manipulating them with the latest theory, remember Mozart and brain development?
Attachment theory sounds suspiciously like the self-esteem thing that was popular a decade or so back. Here’s an idea, stick a lot of trophies and plaques in the baby’s room and be done with it.
Bowlby and Ainsworth, the psychologists who developed the theory were Freudian in the main, which tells you there is a tendency to overestimate the influence of mommy in ways that have pretty much been debunked.
Ainsworth’s ‘scientific validation’ was one study she did herself on the theory she and Bowlby developed. That’s hardly validation, more like Coke paying for ‘studies’ showing sugar isn’t the obesity culprit.
Some parents are obsessed with operating on their kids, manipulating them with the latest theory, remember Mozart and brain development?
Attachment theory sounds suspiciously like the self-esteem thing that was popular a decade or so back. Here’s an idea, stick a lot of trophies and plaques in the baby’s room and be done with it.
2
The author missed a couple of key factors in her description. First, attachment security is most strongly linked to a caregiver's reflective capacity to know his/her own emotional triggers and to step back and understand that their child has emotional needs and a different and valid experience of the world. It is not a matter of a particular set of parenting behaviors. There are MANY ways to be secure. Insecure organized relationships are problematic, but folks can live within them. Disorganization results from a child being frightened in the presence of their caregiver on a regular basis....domestic violence for example. By the age of 3 or so, these kiddos step in to organize the relationships themselves, either trying to manage the emotions of the adults around them, or raging and bullying.
I'm currently working with foster/adoptive families and with children who have experienced multiple foster placements. As they grow, we can only provide a new template of reliable safety and work to help them develop the capacity for reflection to make sense of their lives. Genetics do count, but security helps folks to work with whatever genetic and environmental challenges are present.
I'm currently working with foster/adoptive families and with children who have experienced multiple foster placements. As they grow, we can only provide a new template of reliable safety and work to help them develop the capacity for reflection to make sense of their lives. Genetics do count, but security helps folks to work with whatever genetic and environmental challenges are present.
10
Interesting article, though there may also be some genetic dispositions at play. For example, my sister could be described as someone who suffers to open up and have healthy relationships, though she was the first born and had 100% of my parents' attention. I have a great marriage, friendships and a wonderful son, but my parents were definitely more distracted when I was growing up. My sister and I have vastly different personalities, which can be contributed to genetics. So there's only so much nature vs nurture you can really control; every person is unique.
12
A lot of the comments address very superficial factors, like whether babies are left alone in their cribs at night or whether they get picked up when they cry. It seems to me the more important factor is whether the same people are even present from day to day. When an infant is passed to a different caregiver every week or month, how can any lasting attachments form?
8
Hmm, attachment theory fans, I think your bias is showing. Recently, we had to deal with the labeling of introverts (by extroverts) as somehow defficient and needing intervention. Now we have "insecure" attachment sufferers as another deficient and delinquent group.
Even the categories and labels, at least as presented by Murphy, reflect a pre-selected ideal. We seem to have multiple categories of dysfunctional attachment types (diagnosis is fun!), but only one true secure personality--predicated on the "social species" model. How about those who are secure, in different ways, in themselves, without overwhelming dependencies on others? I guess if you can't imagine that, you can't see it.
Even the categories and labels, at least as presented by Murphy, reflect a pre-selected ideal. We seem to have multiple categories of dysfunctional attachment types (diagnosis is fun!), but only one true secure personality--predicated on the "social species" model. How about those who are secure, in different ways, in themselves, without overwhelming dependencies on others? I guess if you can't imagine that, you can't see it.
7
One more point about the importance of attachment, for the doubters:
Reactive Attachment Disorder is the affliction that kids adopted at older ages from orphanages can sometimes suffer from-- kids who lacked the one on one care, eye contact, and holding they should have received as babies and can not bond with their valiant adoptive families. In some cases these children have been adopted quite young, and their experiences thereafter are safe.
Bonding is sensitive and critical. It creates a structural capacity in the brain for self regulation, trust, stability, and belonging.
Reactive Attachment Disorder is the affliction that kids adopted at older ages from orphanages can sometimes suffer from-- kids who lacked the one on one care, eye contact, and holding they should have received as babies and can not bond with their valiant adoptive families. In some cases these children have been adopted quite young, and their experiences thereafter are safe.
Bonding is sensitive and critical. It creates a structural capacity in the brain for self regulation, trust, stability, and belonging.
6
As bio parent of 4, foster parent of 37 children, adoptive parent of 8 of them, attachment parenting is a familiar topic. My husband, a professor of Anthropology and student of Margaret Mead,insisted we should have open adoptions because "it would be a terrible thing to hate your mother." So we have holiday and birthday visits together or exchange cards and gifts and ask teachers for extra mothers' (and fathers'-if known) day cards). My grown daughters have careers, used a breast pump to continue nursing up
to a year, or bottles and formula from WIC. 18 wonderful grandchildren (many with their own smartphones) bring diversity and fond memories.
to a year, or bottles and formula from WIC. 18 wonderful grandchildren (many with their own smartphones) bring diversity and fond memories.
10
A not insignificant problem with this essay, and many comments, is the idea that mothers are the only named source of "attachment." I was the first face my son saw at his birth in a farm house in the winter of 1984, and then I was his primary care giver for the first 11 years of his life. While that was not common then, in 2016 there are many, many men raising children. Gay couples, widowers, divorce situation all create this and even in so-called traditional families fathers are rarely cited for their EQUAL role in parenting.
14
Attachment theory has to be understood as one part of a more complicated picture of interaction between nature and nurture. It emphasizes the nurture piece over the nature piece (some people are born with less anxious brains for example, some people are born with less empathy, etc). It also emphasizes dyadic relations and especially the relation with a primary care giver. This is social arrangement is actually not the norm for humans who evolved in a social environment where there was less dependence on a single care giver (traditional and ancient communities provided much more support for the mother than is common now).
3
I doubt there will ever be a "unified theory" of child raising. We should all try to muddle through as best we can. We each have our own needs, as do our individual children. Often we become a good evaluator of what our individual child needs, but not always. Perhaps most important is being able to ask for and accept help when the job becomes difficult or insurmountable.
5
Attachment theory and research reveal complex interactions among varied processes. The title of this article puts all the blame on the parents. Attachment is a relational concept. It depends as much on the child as on the parents. In addition, a person who seems to "have" one attachment style with one person can act differently with someone else. It is complex, with much variability. Moreover, brains develop throughout the lifespan, and thus I wonder about "indelible templates." Human behavior and development are incredibly complex, and cannot be summed up with broad generalizations about the first year of life.
11
This is nonsense. Babies are born with an innate temperament. I have been teaching for 25 years and have seen very well adjusted kids come out of terrible homes, and unreachable kids come from supportive, intact, financially stable homes. Ask any parent with more than one child how different their kids are - my three couldn't be more different. All raised in the same home with uniquely different dispositions and needs. Nature rules over nurture.
43
We talk about forming relationship with healthy people but often the people psychology deems healthy won't associate with those of us who aren't, because we are generally deemed damaged goods As my mental illness has worsened almost all of the friends in my life deemed healthy by psychology have dropped out of it.
9
Oh my goodness... I think we all collectively need to TOUGHEN UP and quit all this tiresome navel-gazing. Do you think animals, or, for that matter, families and communities working together to survive in developing countries, sit around talking about "folding in" to their caregivers and how that is to blame for their present dating qualms?
As a culture we're far too ready to moon about discussing our pasts instead of just getting on with loving and LIVING. So your parents didn't hug you enough, or hugged you too much, yadda yadda yawn -- so what are you going to DO about it? Get out there, and, whatever type of personality you have, try and make it work with someone. Maybe 9 out of 10 attempts will fail -- that's not you, that's just people -- but keep going because what else can you do?
Your past is a fact, but your future is a choice. GET ON WITH IT!
As a culture we're far too ready to moon about discussing our pasts instead of just getting on with loving and LIVING. So your parents didn't hug you enough, or hugged you too much, yadda yadda yawn -- so what are you going to DO about it? Get out there, and, whatever type of personality you have, try and make it work with someone. Maybe 9 out of 10 attempts will fail -- that's not you, that's just people -- but keep going because what else can you do?
Your past is a fact, but your future is a choice. GET ON WITH IT!
2
Let me give you an example of something I witnessed in Manhattan when my firstborn was little. In the back of a discount clothing store, I saw a little boy around age 3 playing by ducking under racks of clothing, as children will do. He was with his very young mother and a woman I assumed was her mother. They both ignored the boy until he fell and cried out. Then the mother grabbed a heavy plastic hanger and began to beat him over the head with it, yelling at him to shut up. The grandmother then pulled him upright by the hair. I watched as the boy stifled his whimpers.
Do you think that child had the same chance as you or I to grow up psychologically healthy and able to parent the next generation? This is a dramatic example, but there are many lesser ways in which a vulnerable young child can receive the devastating message, again and again, that he and his feelings do not matter.
When an infant or young child experiences neglect (or, of course, abuse) repeatedly, it is crippling. The effects can and usually do last a lifetime, and they can be transmitted to the next generation.
It's hard to see what part of that simple truth rings false to you and the other "get over it" commenters. Maybe you were among those people lucky enough never to have experienced or witnessed the truly inadequate parenting of a baby or young child? Even so, it is possible to develop empathy.
Do you think that child had the same chance as you or I to grow up psychologically healthy and able to parent the next generation? This is a dramatic example, but there are many lesser ways in which a vulnerable young child can receive the devastating message, again and again, that he and his feelings do not matter.
When an infant or young child experiences neglect (or, of course, abuse) repeatedly, it is crippling. The effects can and usually do last a lifetime, and they can be transmitted to the next generation.
It's hard to see what part of that simple truth rings false to you and the other "get over it" commenters. Maybe you were among those people lucky enough never to have experienced or witnessed the truly inadequate parenting of a baby or young child? Even so, it is possible to develop empathy.
21
I live in a poor neighborhood that is very diverse. One of the biggest things I've seen that predicts the success or failure of children here is their home life. Specifically if they come from a two parent household and if their parents are involved in their life.
When you are poor, everything is harder and takes longer. The poor don't have the resources needed to smooth their way through life. Just taking the bus to a doctor's appointment can be a half day ordeal. Yet with all of this there are some groups that consistently do well. They are the cultures that have two parent households, who are involved in their child's life and who set and enforce standards. Children are a sponge and they look to their parents and those around them on how they should behave and what their choices should be. If their parents provide support and firm guidance, they have a very good chance of success.
If the culture is one of single mother households, non involvement, drugs and or alcohol, gangs, that child has a bleak future ahead of him / her. It is not impossible to raise a successful child as a single mom, but it is so very difficult that it is rare. A support network is absolutely critical. As the article points out and to paraphrase an old quote "The actions of the mother are passed down to the daughter, to the 7th generation."
When you are poor, everything is harder and takes longer. The poor don't have the resources needed to smooth their way through life. Just taking the bus to a doctor's appointment can be a half day ordeal. Yet with all of this there are some groups that consistently do well. They are the cultures that have two parent households, who are involved in their child's life and who set and enforce standards. Children are a sponge and they look to their parents and those around them on how they should behave and what their choices should be. If their parents provide support and firm guidance, they have a very good chance of success.
If the culture is one of single mother households, non involvement, drugs and or alcohol, gangs, that child has a bleak future ahead of him / her. It is not impossible to raise a successful child as a single mom, but it is so very difficult that it is rare. A support network is absolutely critical. As the article points out and to paraphrase an old quote "The actions of the mother are passed down to the daughter, to the 7th generation."
17
It is not impossible to raise a successful child as a single mom, but it is a choice to do so.
That 40% of American women choose it the outcome of LBJs Great Society, now rewarding a fourth generation of women for having children without any thought of what kind of life they can offer them.
That 40% of American women choose it the outcome of LBJs Great Society, now rewarding a fourth generation of women for having children without any thought of what kind of life they can offer them.
1
As someone who was raised very successfully although in poverty, I endorse the thoughts you express in your comment wholeheartedly.
3
Home life is absolutely important, but why is your comment focused solely on "poor" and "single mother" families? Home life can be just as dysfunctional in so-called rich/affluent and two-parent households, especially if there is physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse present. I personally think many people (representing all backgrounds) are poorly-suited to be parents, but they have children anyway usually for very selfish reasons. If more people would forgo having human offspring, the world would probably be a much better and more peaceful place.
3
Attachment parenting is the least known school of thought to the public? Clearly you don't know anyone with small children. In popular parenting books, websites, and discussion groups, attachment theory is king. And pop psych "experts" have taken the attachment football and run it to some dark, strange places. You will find no shortage of parenting websites declaring that mothers must model themselves on the !Kung - carrying babies everywhere in a sling, breastfeeding on demand until age two, never putting an infant down for a second, cosleeping, responding instantly to any whimper. The fact that modern women are not surrounded by a helpful kinship network and must return to work after 6-12 weeks is considered no excuse. If a baby cries unattended, even for a moment, they will become insecurely attached, with disastrous results. Only a selfish bad mother puts a baby down to go to the bathroom. "Attachment parenting" has become so merciless and demanding that the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome has had to push back with a campaign that essentially says, "babies cry, even !Kung babies, and it's okay to put the baby down to take care of yourself."
10
How do these people ever have a second child, or would that be too traumatic for the first one?
3
The article isn't about 'attachment parenting'. Did you not read it?
7
Many of these comments indicate the readers' confusion between the subject of this article, attachment theory, and attachment parenting. Attachment theory is not about baby books eg. letting a baby cry it out or not or responding to every "cue" etc. It's broader than that. It's so important to advocate for healthy attachment between mother/father and infant however and wherever we can. External influences or mental health issues later in life may be easier to navigate with that foundation of security.
11
These articles are pointless and frankly misguided. File this with the countless articles that try to figure out why poor people voted for Trump.
If as a parent you neglect your kids, someone will call child protection or protective services (DYFS in this State. How about people start taking responsibility for their own lives and stop blaming their parents - especially those whose crime was being too attentive! At what age do you take responsibility for the decisions you make in your life? Never?
I would put a statute of limitations on alleged bad parenting.
If as a parent you neglect your kids, someone will call child protection or protective services (DYFS in this State. How about people start taking responsibility for their own lives and stop blaming their parents - especially those whose crime was being too attentive! At what age do you take responsibility for the decisions you make in your life? Never?
I would put a statute of limitations on alleged bad parenting.
5
I feel as if I'm reading a very outdated, decades-old textbook . Simplistic categories do not help anyone, especially anxious parents who are given nothing but generalized guilt.This article is not worthy of the NYTimes.
21
Evolution designed a perfect system for neurological development. In a state of nature, babies would be kept nearby and kept quiet (not to attract predators). They would be held, carried, breastfed on demand and nestled by their moms at night, over a span of years.
Babies must co-regulate with their mothers. A mother's presence, insight, attunement to her baby's emotions, and taking pleasure in her baby-- this is the heart of attachment. "I am happy, good, and valuable" thinks the pre-verbal soothed/sated baby.
Now, consider cribs, bottles, revolving door caregivers, daycare at 6 weeks, and "cry it out." These are NOT the attachment experiences human infants were designed to receive. Unsurprisingly, anxious humans are the result.
Mental and physical illnesses are caused by early trauma: see the ACE study. A small baby who is crying, scared and unable to self-soothe experiences a flood of cortisol-- fight/flight/freeze. Cortisol is meant for quick escape, and is toxic to our organs when experienced over long periods. Mal-attached kids learn not to call out for care, to feign indifference. Nevertheless, their cortisol is spiking.
Gary Ezzo's appalling 'babywise' practices (scheduled feedings, not immediately picking up your infant so they learn not to manipulate you, etc) are responsible for a lot of miserable, scared young adults. This book is still very popular in church circles.
Breastfeed. Empathize. Soothe and comfort. Take pleasure in your baby!
Babies must co-regulate with their mothers. A mother's presence, insight, attunement to her baby's emotions, and taking pleasure in her baby-- this is the heart of attachment. "I am happy, good, and valuable" thinks the pre-verbal soothed/sated baby.
Now, consider cribs, bottles, revolving door caregivers, daycare at 6 weeks, and "cry it out." These are NOT the attachment experiences human infants were designed to receive. Unsurprisingly, anxious humans are the result.
Mental and physical illnesses are caused by early trauma: see the ACE study. A small baby who is crying, scared and unable to self-soothe experiences a flood of cortisol-- fight/flight/freeze. Cortisol is meant for quick escape, and is toxic to our organs when experienced over long periods. Mal-attached kids learn not to call out for care, to feign indifference. Nevertheless, their cortisol is spiking.
Gary Ezzo's appalling 'babywise' practices (scheduled feedings, not immediately picking up your infant so they learn not to manipulate you, etc) are responsible for a lot of miserable, scared young adults. This book is still very popular in church circles.
Breastfeed. Empathize. Soothe and comfort. Take pleasure in your baby!
28
Evolution does not design anything.
1
I'm sorry, but how is this remotely helpful? What is the point of telling parents that their children will be traumatized and irreparably damaged by daycare or by being apart from their mothers for a single second in the first three years of life? Do you understand how 95% of Americans live? Do you have something to offer besides guilt and judgement? The idealized hunter-gatherer lifestyle you describe is largely a product of your imagination, and to the degree it exists, it is a communal one. Do you have some plan that allows modern women to take off work for a decade or more to spend their childbearing years passing babies around in a helpful group of female relatives? (Assuming that they would want to?)
I hear a lot of this harping on cortisol from attachment parenters, and I find the lecturing to be absolutely toxic. It leads isolated, unsupported, economically stressed new mothers into a spiral of guilt and depression. If you are interested in being helpful, provide some practical tips for people living in the real world.
I hear a lot of this harping on cortisol from attachment parenters, and I find the lecturing to be absolutely toxic. It leads isolated, unsupported, economically stressed new mothers into a spiral of guilt and depression. If you are interested in being helpful, provide some practical tips for people living in the real world.
12
This article and the accompanying comments are an excellent distillation of the struggle to translate science into practice. In the field of child development particularly, 'what we know' about the critical needs of infants often has little influence over 'what we do'. I have stopped using the term 'attachment' and instead I talk to parents about the importance of early relationships for healthy development. I have learned to tell the story of infant development as follows: your baby has an important job to do and it has three parts - 1) s/he must learn how to form a close emotional tie to a caring person, 2) she must learn how to play and explore, and 3) she must learn how to regulate her feelings and behavior. She starts doing that job in the first minutes of life and she does that job in the context of a relationship with a caring adult. Infants must have a relationship with at least one caring adult who can provide predictable, consistent and nurturing care. As Bronfenbrenner once said, "in order to develop normally, a child requires progressively more complex joint activity with one or more adults who have an irrational emotional relationship with the child. Somebody’s got to be
crazy about that kid. That’s number one. First, last, and always." For more information I recommend the Harvard Center for the Developing Child http://developingchild.harvard.edu/
crazy about that kid. That’s number one. First, last, and always." For more information I recommend the Harvard Center for the Developing Child http://developingchild.harvard.edu/
17
She has a pretty easy time of it. The testosterone plagued children do not.
The article is good but they title is terrible. It is totally contrary to the spirit and the practice of researchers and therapists informed by attachment theory to blame parents. Rather the effort is to understand them and their efforts to become better parents. The author does mentions that one of the important contributions of attachment theory has been to document and show how attachment patterns and trauma associated with disorganized attachment get transmitted from one generation to another.
Blame has no place in working with parents. The vast majority of parents do the best job they can. Parenting is highly intuitive, and if your intuitions are not to expect to be comforted when distressed chances are you won’t know how to comfort others when they are distressed. Or if you become emotionally dysregulated when others are distressed, your best intentions as a parent may come short of what is needed. As the article mention there are now many effective, evidence-based interventions that help parents learn how to read their children's communications and respond sensitively to their needs.
Blame has no place in working with parents. The vast majority of parents do the best job they can. Parenting is highly intuitive, and if your intuitions are not to expect to be comforted when distressed chances are you won’t know how to comfort others when they are distressed. Or if you become emotionally dysregulated when others are distressed, your best intentions as a parent may come short of what is needed. As the article mention there are now many effective, evidence-based interventions that help parents learn how to read their children's communications and respond sensitively to their needs.
49
Thank you for this very sensitive and very helpful comment.
This is an issue that has impacted my family intergenerationally, and I feel strongly that it is important for people to know that with the right kind of help you can in fact "do better" than your parents might have been capable of doing.
It is hard to give what you have not received. Hard, but not impossible.
This is an issue that has impacted my family intergenerationally, and I feel strongly that it is important for people to know that with the right kind of help you can in fact "do better" than your parents might have been capable of doing.
It is hard to give what you have not received. Hard, but not impossible.
29
I thought the title was excellent. It was meant to grab your attention and it succeeded. It's tongue in cheek!
4
Murphy's analysis goes wrong in the second paragraph, in which she writes, "there have been many schools of thought ... from Freudian to Gestalt".
How on earth does a spectrum of opinion (Murphy's "from ... to") that is book-ended by psychoanalytic theories--whose heyday ended in the 1950's--represent the full breadth of scholarly opinion on this topic?
Murphy fails to place the widely discredited, largely pseudo-scientific psychoanalytic theories in their proper modern context. As another comment alluded, a good dose of Steven Pinker may be in order here.
How on earth does a spectrum of opinion (Murphy's "from ... to") that is book-ended by psychoanalytic theories--whose heyday ended in the 1950's--represent the full breadth of scholarly opinion on this topic?
Murphy fails to place the widely discredited, largely pseudo-scientific psychoanalytic theories in their proper modern context. As another comment alluded, a good dose of Steven Pinker may be in order here.
8
You are wrong. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about psychoanalysis. Talk to the patients who have benefited from the hard work of psychoanalysis and you will change your mind. Until then please don't trash something you seem to know nothing about.
11
Somebody got paid to figure out this? Seriously. I was 16 or 17 before I figured out that some parents actually like their children; the idea that some loved their children was a real headbanger.
In high school, there were about half a dozen of us who'd accepted that our parent's house (usually one parent) would never be home. We stood up for ourselves and each other. How do you form attachments with kids who go home to milk and cookies? We learned to anticipate violent outbursts and avoid them if possible. We had no way to relate to parents who cared or to their kids.
Overly attentive parents set off alarms; too often, we were right. We instinctively knew they would get violent and we were always ready to take off. That was our normal.
If that's avoidance, deal with it. It was simply survival. I avoided physical violence. I never expected comfort. Comfort makes me suspicious unless it comes from a close friend. One grandmother comforted and protected me, but she died when I was very young.
Getting grants for stating the obvious seems like an easy way to get money. Where do I sign up?
In high school, there were about half a dozen of us who'd accepted that our parent's house (usually one parent) would never be home. We stood up for ourselves and each other. How do you form attachments with kids who go home to milk and cookies? We learned to anticipate violent outbursts and avoid them if possible. We had no way to relate to parents who cared or to their kids.
Overly attentive parents set off alarms; too often, we were right. We instinctively knew they would get violent and we were always ready to take off. That was our normal.
If that's avoidance, deal with it. It was simply survival. I avoided physical violence. I never expected comfort. Comfort makes me suspicious unless it comes from a close friend. One grandmother comforted and protected me, but she died when I was very young.
Getting grants for stating the obvious seems like an easy way to get money. Where do I sign up?
10
I am sorry for your pain.
My late mother and her sister, who is still in good shape at 95, experienced the kind of parenting you describe. My aunt still stutters when she talks about her early years with her parents (one self-centered and uncaring, the other alcoholic and intermittently abusive). On the plus side, my aunt herself became a good person capable of giving love. I tell her that was her victory.
My late mother and her sister, who is still in good shape at 95, experienced the kind of parenting you describe. My aunt still stutters when she talks about her early years with her parents (one self-centered and uncaring, the other alcoholic and intermittently abusive). On the plus side, my aunt herself became a good person capable of giving love. I tell her that was her victory.
17
So I guess it's back to the Refrigerator Mother when it come to Autism?
4
Does this explain President Obama? Apparently!
1
Your article did not mention Sue Johnson, PhD and creator of EFT or ICEEFT.
A rather obvious omission!!!!! Perhaps because you did not research Canadian contributors?! Dr. Johnson is an internationally respected researcher and clinician and the main contributor, whose work began in the early 1990's. Attachment theory is not a new concept. I have been using it in my practice for years. It makes so much sense. Hopefully more will have support for using this in their relationships rather than the alternatives which continue to concern.
A rather obvious omission!!!!! Perhaps because you did not research Canadian contributors?! Dr. Johnson is an internationally respected researcher and clinician and the main contributor, whose work began in the early 1990's. Attachment theory is not a new concept. I have been using it in my practice for years. It makes so much sense. Hopefully more will have support for using this in their relationships rather than the alternatives which continue to concern.
3
So what's with all the ! points?
1
"Given that the divorce rate is also 40 percent to 50 percent, ... "
Whoever wrote this article doesn't know much about statistics, nor did they bother to consult the reference for that remark. Those tables show the rate per thousand (6.9) which the tables also show as decreasing. That 6.9 figure translates to .0069
The "divorce rate" as a overall metric is calculated by dividing the number of divorces by the number of marriages - so divide 2 million by 94 million marriages (United States) - and you get about 2% - a far cry from the commonly-cited "40-50%" false figure.
So as far as I am concerned - the rest of the article is also in doubt.
Whoever wrote this article doesn't know much about statistics, nor did they bother to consult the reference for that remark. Those tables show the rate per thousand (6.9) which the tables also show as decreasing. That 6.9 figure translates to .0069
The "divorce rate" as a overall metric is calculated by dividing the number of divorces by the number of marriages - so divide 2 million by 94 million marriages (United States) - and you get about 2% - a far cry from the commonly-cited "40-50%" false figure.
So as far as I am concerned - the rest of the article is also in doubt.
2
The great thing about 'studies' is they invariably affirm whatever hypothesis the researchers set out to prove.
3
Facile quip but not true. (Unless of course you are talking about corporate-funded nutrition studies.)
5
Taking parenting classes can help a person be a better parent, but those of us with life experience know that nothing really prepares a person for the reality. It is largely a learn as you go process, though key guidance certainly helps.
More deeply, why are some born into stable families, with food, shelter and basic physical needs met, but most importantly why are some born into a matrix of emotional bonds that are loving and supportive, and make one feel safe. And some aren't. One of the eternal mysteries it seems.
Anyone open to the notion that doing what is required to help an infant feel safe - (and this is what is most important, especially the first few years of life) - can improve their parenting skills and help their child be better adjusted as adults.
Just this one insight can help a child grow up more secure and healthy. It can make a huge difference. And that is clearly a very good thing. Sadly, that lack of early emotional support and feeling of safety can so damage a person they become a lifetime reclamation project, and will need lots of therapy and hopefully love from someone. Learning the need for fairness, endless communication and negotiating in any relationship is also good.
More deeply, why are some born into stable families, with food, shelter and basic physical needs met, but most importantly why are some born into a matrix of emotional bonds that are loving and supportive, and make one feel safe. And some aren't. One of the eternal mysteries it seems.
Anyone open to the notion that doing what is required to help an infant feel safe - (and this is what is most important, especially the first few years of life) - can improve their parenting skills and help their child be better adjusted as adults.
Just this one insight can help a child grow up more secure and healthy. It can make a huge difference. And that is clearly a very good thing. Sadly, that lack of early emotional support and feeling of safety can so damage a person they become a lifetime reclamation project, and will need lots of therapy and hopefully love from someone. Learning the need for fairness, endless communication and negotiating in any relationship is also good.
6
How safe is safe enough? Safe is an illusion for us animals.
2
Many of the comments here focus on factors other than attachment/bonding in infancy and early childhood. One even ascribes "10-15%" responsibility for the child's mental health to parenting. I think these readers have missed the point.
Of course - if a child is born with a genetic disposition to acute/chronic mental illness, parenting will be less significant in their long-term development. But the number of children falling into that category is still relatively low.
The studies and therapies discussed by Ms. Murphy assume "all things being equal" at birth and during early development. Her point being - if a baby is born with "normal" or "average" mental health, her early relationship with her parents will be one of the most significant influences on her development, especially in terms of how she relates to other people.
If one wants to understand this issue in depth, one of the best books is "Building the Bonds of Attachment - Awakening Love in Deeply Troubled Children" by Daniel A. Hughes.
Of course - if a child is born with a genetic disposition to acute/chronic mental illness, parenting will be less significant in their long-term development. But the number of children falling into that category is still relatively low.
The studies and therapies discussed by Ms. Murphy assume "all things being equal" at birth and during early development. Her point being - if a baby is born with "normal" or "average" mental health, her early relationship with her parents will be one of the most significant influences on her development, especially in terms of how she relates to other people.
If one wants to understand this issue in depth, one of the best books is "Building the Bonds of Attachment - Awakening Love in Deeply Troubled Children" by Daniel A. Hughes.
2
Totally irrelevant maybe, but I have 58 year old friends, attached financially 100% to Mums Mums. Can't live financially or emotionally without Mumsy.
2
There is an easy modus tollens here:
If attachment theory (AT) is correct then societies that do not practice AT will produce maladjusted children.
Many Societies and Groups (Uganda, New Guinea, Twin Studies) do not practice AT and their kids are just fine.
Therefore AT is not a complete or accurate explanation of childhood development.
If attachment theory (AT) is correct then societies that do not practice AT will produce maladjusted children.
Many Societies and Groups (Uganda, New Guinea, Twin Studies) do not practice AT and their kids are just fine.
Therefore AT is not a complete or accurate explanation of childhood development.
5
What is valued in a particular culture often will be encouraged in that culture. In our culture, we say we value good relationships but truly, we do not. We value achievement, material wealth, and what things look like rather than what they are. Didn't Uganda produce Idi Amin Dada, a big murderous daddy figure who forced smiles from his terrified "children."
4
The linked meta-analysis actually states that 70% of babies were in fact securely attached, undermining the sensationalist point of the article.
Click on the hyperlink for "meta-analysis" in the article for the quote below:
Quote: "It’s not so great if you are one of the 40 percent to 50 percent of babies who, a meta-analysis of research indicates, are insecurely attached because their early experiences were suboptimal"
May need more fact checking.
Click on the hyperlink for "meta-analysis" in the article for the quote below:
Quote: "It’s not so great if you are one of the 40 percent to 50 percent of babies who, a meta-analysis of research indicates, are insecurely attached because their early experiences were suboptimal"
May need more fact checking.
8
I really think it would be helpful for the child to first be wanted and not an accident; to have a solid co-parenting relationship to be in place and for adequate financial resources.
Excellent daycare gives even young children a chance to build healthy relationships with caring adults should they be so unlucky as to miss out at home. Maybe our education system needs to be more about nurturing than academics, and much earlier on? Because a properly nurtured child will seek out knowledge for its own sake, but a troubled child won't function well enough to care?
Excellent daycare gives even young children a chance to build healthy relationships with caring adults should they be so unlucky as to miss out at home. Maybe our education system needs to be more about nurturing than academics, and much earlier on? Because a properly nurtured child will seek out knowledge for its own sake, but a troubled child won't function well enough to care?
10
Reading this article brings to my mind an observation made by Jean Piaget: "It is the job of the parent to encourage their children to fall in love with them".
15
Ok, the first paragraph of this article is the opening kernel of truth. Yes, relationships, community, friendships and emotional attachments are very important to human beings. But the rest of the article is a bunch of psychobabble. (and I tend to see things very much thru the lens of psychology) The idea that so much of our destiny and emotional skills are all tied up so purely in the actions of our parents is crazy. Yes, how we form bonds with our kids is important. Yes, caring and being attentive is important. But we have years and years to teach and guide our children AND they are born with their own temperaments. A well loved, well bonded child may still have severe separation anxiety or any plethora of other challenges. And some less well cared for children prove remarkably resilient and successful in forming bonds.
Many popular parenting philosophies have 2 key elements. First is the idea that the parent has complete control over the outcome of their children. In our culture we very much want to be in control. The idea that our influence on our kids is balanced by their own inherent temperament, personality, or genetics is rarely discussed. Instead we nurture an idea that we can influence, mold, guide, develop our child into who we believe they need to be. The flip side is to allow them to "grow into themselves." This necessitates a sense of respect for the child who is already themself.
The second feature is to blame the parent i.e. the mother for everything.
Many popular parenting philosophies have 2 key elements. First is the idea that the parent has complete control over the outcome of their children. In our culture we very much want to be in control. The idea that our influence on our kids is balanced by their own inherent temperament, personality, or genetics is rarely discussed. Instead we nurture an idea that we can influence, mold, guide, develop our child into who we believe they need to be. The flip side is to allow them to "grow into themselves." This necessitates a sense of respect for the child who is already themself.
The second feature is to blame the parent i.e. the mother for everything.
47
Apparently Murphy and the psychologists she cites think they know what the ideal relationship between modern people, children and adults, and society should be. They know how people should interact, and think that parents can instill proper behavior by doing the right things.
The basis of human behavior was determined in a process of evolution, most of which is thought to have occurred prior to modern civilization. Neither human nor any other animal society was designed by evolution to be ideal in the sense, say, of minimizing conflict - the driving force has always been maximal reproduction. There is no reason to suppose that psychologists' conjectures could result in any particular kind of "adjustment" of individuals to each other or to society.
The basis of human behavior was determined in a process of evolution, most of which is thought to have occurred prior to modern civilization. Neither human nor any other animal society was designed by evolution to be ideal in the sense, say, of minimizing conflict - the driving force has always been maximal reproduction. There is no reason to suppose that psychologists' conjectures could result in any particular kind of "adjustment" of individuals to each other or to society.
2
As a psychologist I am confidant that "up to 50%" of humanity, never mind, children of parents who worry about these things, have attachment disorder.
"Meta - analysis" is suspect among professionals because it means clumping together the results of studies, good and bad, covering many conditions, with large or small populations, as though they were all of equally high caliber when, in fact, none may be of high caliber. These are not the "meta- analyzers" own studies. A key problem of meta- analyses is finding studies that use the same definition of the "condition".
From the DSM-V on attachment disorders:
Diagnosis
"No laboratory studies yield results that are directly relevant to attachment disorders. Studies related to neglect and nutritional deprivation exist. No imaging studies are used to diagnose attachment disorders. No specific histologic findings are related to attachment disorders."
If you are interested in attachment disorder please take a look at diagnostic criteria in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - V. This is what mental health professionals use to diagnose people with mental disorders. You will be reassured.
This article is out of step with prevailing scientific views of mental health and the impact of parenting and is likely to make parents of perfectly normal children anxious.
"Meta - analysis" is suspect among professionals because it means clumping together the results of studies, good and bad, covering many conditions, with large or small populations, as though they were all of equally high caliber when, in fact, none may be of high caliber. These are not the "meta- analyzers" own studies. A key problem of meta- analyses is finding studies that use the same definition of the "condition".
From the DSM-V on attachment disorders:
Diagnosis
"No laboratory studies yield results that are directly relevant to attachment disorders. Studies related to neglect and nutritional deprivation exist. No imaging studies are used to diagnose attachment disorders. No specific histologic findings are related to attachment disorders."
If you are interested in attachment disorder please take a look at diagnostic criteria in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - V. This is what mental health professionals use to diagnose people with mental disorders. You will be reassured.
This article is out of step with prevailing scientific views of mental health and the impact of parenting and is likely to make parents of perfectly normal children anxious.
6
Yikes!
I meant to say that I am confident that "up to 50% of people DO NOT have attachment disorder.
I meant to say that I am confident that "up to 50% of people DO NOT have attachment disorder.
1
What an unfortunate title.
I have a lot of regard for attachment theory; I think it's critical that very young children have secure attachments. But this is so complex - the relationships the child experiences have so much to do with the child's personality (lots of genetics and epigenetics here), parental circumstances, wider societal support...
I ran across Bowlby's work 40 years ago and it helped me make sense of a lot of my own issues and certainly influenced the way I responded to my daughter (who is now training to be a social worker). But I have needed to find compassion for my parents, to understand where they were coming from, the pressures they faced, etc. in order to heal.
I have a lot of regard for attachment theory; I think it's critical that very young children have secure attachments. But this is so complex - the relationships the child experiences have so much to do with the child's personality (lots of genetics and epigenetics here), parental circumstances, wider societal support...
I ran across Bowlby's work 40 years ago and it helped me make sense of a lot of my own issues and certainly influenced the way I responded to my daughter (who is now training to be a social worker). But I have needed to find compassion for my parents, to understand where they were coming from, the pressures they faced, etc. in order to heal.
5
As you say, these concepts are not new to psychological service providers working with a more behavioral, group-oriented or family therapy approach. Check out the incredible "Psychological Development of the Human Infant" by Margaret Mahler, MD. Its at least fifty years old and quite well-known and respected. No additional validation was needed. Nothing is new in psychology anymore anyway. It just gets rebranded by the media. Meanwhile, the challenges to patient improvement remain constant. Talking therapies are needed, sure. But when the social safety net is taken away, talk doesn't do much.
1
I am struck by the responses dismissing this well established theory as silly or not applicable to the writers. Any brief news analysis of such a theory is bound to include some generalizations or oversights. As with all theories, attachment theory is a model and approximation to help explain what is being observed or experienced. Just because you do not recognize yourself in it, does not mean it can not be helpful in helping others understand themselves. In fact, discrepancies are essential in further testing of the validity of the theory.
2
It is usually the parents fault only to the extent that they had children in the first place. Some people simply should not have children for both biological and situational reasons. Attachment theory, like Freud, has an intuitive appeal to the general public because it is easy to understand and plays to our preconceptions about child rearing. In fact, each child is born with predispositions to behave in their own way. Research has shown that these predispositions are associated with parenting style .. notice the predispositions come first .. parents respond to different children in different ways. Assuming that an infant is not abused in a way that would be legally considered child abuse, most of the variability in temperament among teens and adults can be traced to biological factors and interactions between these factors and environmental factors. Your readers should take the time to read the article linked to "effective" .. it would give the reader a better understanding of the myriad of problems associated with research in this area. The TIMES should not be promoting pop psychology ..
1
Glad to see attachment get some of its due - but the lack of any comments about the neuroscience of attachment is striking. Secure attachment is key to healthy development of cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral skills and maturity. The brain circuits that manage these functions require stable, predictable, responsive, and warm interactions with another human to develop adaptively. It is far more than our relationships.
Attachment difficulties grow in many contexts including parents who are depressed, traumatized or abused themselves, or overwhelmed and exhausted by factors such as poverty and hunger. Divorce itself is not the problem, In fact, a parent who leaves an abusive relationship may dramatically improve their ability to be present and engaged wit their children. These are not just problems of parenting choices.
The headline, and the lack of neuroscience context, create a tone that many will find judgmental and harsh - especially the snarky comment about smartphones. Smartphones have become central to all spheres of life, including parenting and working. Balancing all the demands on time, energy, and focus in parenting today challenges everyone. You cannot just tell mothers and fathers to put away their phones. Parent shaming will only add to the frenetic level of stress and demand that are already out there.
Attachment difficulties grow in many contexts including parents who are depressed, traumatized or abused themselves, or overwhelmed and exhausted by factors such as poverty and hunger. Divorce itself is not the problem, In fact, a parent who leaves an abusive relationship may dramatically improve their ability to be present and engaged wit their children. These are not just problems of parenting choices.
The headline, and the lack of neuroscience context, create a tone that many will find judgmental and harsh - especially the snarky comment about smartphones. Smartphones have become central to all spheres of life, including parenting and working. Balancing all the demands on time, energy, and focus in parenting today challenges everyone. You cannot just tell mothers and fathers to put away their phones. Parent shaming will only add to the frenetic level of stress and demand that are already out there.
6
Certainly children who grow up with positive attachment experiences are at an advantage to those with negative ones. And clearly this is just one variable that determines who they become. The big problem is those young parents who today take this to extremes in attachment parenting. The baby is never put down and is physically attached all it's waking hours and sleeps in the same bed. This creates an attachment but probably inhibits the growth of a sense of individuality.
5
Not to mention an only child....
1
"Given that the divorce rate is also 40 percent to 50 percent, it would seem that this is not an easy task."
The 40 to 50% divorce rate is misleading:
.... in 2001 it was estimated that 21% of men and 23% of women over 15 years of age had ever been divorced.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/what-is-the-real-divorce-_b_...
Also see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/divorce-rate-its-not-as-high-as...
Both articles also mention that the divorce rate in the US is decreasing.
So we humans are not as bad off as implied in the article.
The 40 to 50% divorce rate is misleading:
.... in 2001 it was estimated that 21% of men and 23% of women over 15 years of age had ever been divorced.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/what-is-the-real-divorce-_b_...
Also see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/divorce-rate-its-not-as-high-as...
Both articles also mention that the divorce rate in the US is decreasing.
So we humans are not as bad off as implied in the article.
2
I began my training with young children in the '70's. Social Work School a decade later and then became a psychoanalyst.
Attachment theory is the foundation of many other points of view, including Freud, Jung, Cognitive Behavior & Self-psychology.
Of course there are genetic factors, but in my experience, the degree of security a child experiences in the first years of life colors everything.
It surprised me to read this article as "new news". To those of us in the field, it isn't. Early intervention is the key and sorely lacking in this country.
Attachment theory is the foundation of many other points of view, including Freud, Jung, Cognitive Behavior & Self-psychology.
Of course there are genetic factors, but in my experience, the degree of security a child experiences in the first years of life colors everything.
It surprised me to read this article as "new news". To those of us in the field, it isn't. Early intervention is the key and sorely lacking in this country.
6
But how do you intervene early to provide that kind of critical bond? Take babies and young children at risk away? Training high-risk parents has had limited effect if any.
1
This article triggered the usual comments from parents that the NYTime’s articles on psychology and parenting seem always to elicit: Not Me! Maybe not, but there are plenty of parents out there who do not provide their kids with the love and security that they need. And those (insecure) kids grow up and repeat it with their kids. I’ve seen it.
5
The fact that this piece appeared in the Sunday Review rather than the Style section says nothing good about the future of this publication.
3
There is a book I give to my friends who:
1. Are having marital troubles
2. Are single and want to choose a spouse well
3. Are suffering after a divorce
4. Are suffering from their spouses adultery
The book is called "How We Love" by Milan and Kay Yerkovick. You start by taking a test which determines how you rate in 5 key attachment theory values. Then there are chapters that cover your specific attachment style. This is revealing as long as you are honest with yourself!
Next, if your Love Style is Pleaser and your spouse is a Vacillator, it explains the types of disagreements you likely will experience...and how to overcome these negatives. It truly helps give expression to feelings you have had for years but just didn't know how to express them! It can bring a lot of closeness and tenderness as each of you identify the triggers inside of you and how to have fruitful and positive relationships as a result!
I have given this book out to roughly 50 people...ALL say it's one of the most beneficial books they've ever read. Again...its Attachment Theory in practice!
1. Are having marital troubles
2. Are single and want to choose a spouse well
3. Are suffering after a divorce
4. Are suffering from their spouses adultery
The book is called "How We Love" by Milan and Kay Yerkovick. You start by taking a test which determines how you rate in 5 key attachment theory values. Then there are chapters that cover your specific attachment style. This is revealing as long as you are honest with yourself!
Next, if your Love Style is Pleaser and your spouse is a Vacillator, it explains the types of disagreements you likely will experience...and how to overcome these negatives. It truly helps give expression to feelings you have had for years but just didn't know how to express them! It can bring a lot of closeness and tenderness as each of you identify the triggers inside of you and how to have fruitful and positive relationships as a result!
I have given this book out to roughly 50 people...ALL say it's one of the most beneficial books they've ever read. Again...its Attachment Theory in practice!
5
"Attachment therapy" seems to be a fairly broad umbrella, but there's plenty there to be skeptical about that isn't noted in this article.
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/at.html
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/at.html
2
Attachment theory and attachment therapy are two different things.
4
Attachment theory is having a 'break out moment' which is to say it is in vogue. But isn't attachment theory as stated here--as Broadly controlling outcomes--refuted by decades of study on temperament and the genetic influences on personality?
This view of parenting is perfectly suited to baby parents and first time parents who are primed to buy books and click on sites. The people who have not fully reckoned with the large proportion of genetics and fate in parenting.
Attacent theory as understood by many is a heartless take on parents and an ironically neglectful take on children. Let's be real and focus resources on emotional education for children in schools (a more useful trend of thought in my opinion) and focus on community support for parents and their children. Attachment theory as a primary focus puts too much focus on lone stressed parents. It's an isolating way to think about supporting our children.
This view of parenting is perfectly suited to baby parents and first time parents who are primed to buy books and click on sites. The people who have not fully reckoned with the large proportion of genetics and fate in parenting.
Attacent theory as understood by many is a heartless take on parents and an ironically neglectful take on children. Let's be real and focus resources on emotional education for children in schools (a more useful trend of thought in my opinion) and focus on community support for parents and their children. Attachment theory as a primary focus puts too much focus on lone stressed parents. It's an isolating way to think about supporting our children.
23
With all due respect, it's almost comical to mention a divorce rate of "40 percent to 50 percent" at a time when the C.D.C reports that 40% of children in the U.S. are born to women (and men, one supposes) who aren't married. The divorce rate would seem to be a minor point. (See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm. )
19
There's basis in science for the disproportionate impact of conditioning during the first year of life, and its tendency to shape our responses to stimuli everafter.
What's ignored here is genetics - how physiological differences in brain chemistry play a far greater role in some individuals than others.
Those people can't blame it on their parents if they like. But the way they respond in relationships is more the result of a nexus of chance encounters among distant ancestors they never knew.
What's ignored here is genetics - how physiological differences in brain chemistry play a far greater role in some individuals than others.
Those people can't blame it on their parents if they like. But the way they respond in relationships is more the result of a nexus of chance encounters among distant ancestors they never knew.
9
"Experts in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, sociology and education say the theory’s underlying assumption — that the quality of our early attachments profoundly influences how we behave as adults — has special resonance in an era when people seem more attached to their smartphones than to one another."
It would probably be more accurate to say that some experts feel this way. Otherwise there is the implication that there is near unanimous agreement among experts. In fact, many experts in neuroscience, for example, are probably not aware of attachment theory.
Also it is probably worth noting that Jerome Kagan described differences in attachment of infants many years ago.
It would probably be more accurate to say that some experts feel this way. Otherwise there is the implication that there is near unanimous agreement among experts. In fact, many experts in neuroscience, for example, are probably not aware of attachment theory.
Also it is probably worth noting that Jerome Kagan described differences in attachment of infants many years ago.
5
Nice article. To it I would add: parents themselves grow in context. This article states that two intervention programs are "helping "at-risk" groups like teenage mothers change their attachment behaviors..." Great. There is much evidence that evolution designed the teenage female to become a mother as a teenager and not later and still, our culture and most western cultures encourage girls to dress well and look attractive while not becoming involved in risky sexual relationships. When pregnancies do occur, from day one, the girl is often primed to leave the child behind so she herself can work in order to support the child. In some more parochial less biologically-reality based thought enclaves, the human body is seen as sinful with offspring arriving amid hierarchy based power structure in which mothers occupy the bottom tiers. And then we have poor environments. I believe in attachment theory and I believe in Adverse Childhood Experiences indicators. I believe we are part of nature and it is not in our best interests to ignore that. (I was taught right out of first grade that boys and girls had "bad" parts and perhaps my talking about it resulted in my being impregnated and robbed of my one and only born child before I knew how those "bad parts" worked. I desperately longed for my baby back then and I wonder just what my baby thought when he was dragged away from me. Females and mothers are not just incubators and food dispensers. There is primal love.
3
Interesting article.....
It provoked the following thoughts...
Parent child relationships have changed over millennia.
There was a time when multiple generations lived in the same town, and constantly interacted with each other, learned from each other, passing down stories, experience, solace, and wisdom...
Then...
Our highly mobile society allowed generations to move out on their own in demographically disparate places....losing that daily contact that gave stability and "place" to family members.
With my first 2 children....who reside elsewhere in the U.S. there wasn't FaceBook, FaceTime, and texting.
With my last 2 children--who also live elsewhere in their own independent careers-- there is.
Our connections are now daily. albeit electronic. Yet the shared thoughts with texting, the daily iPhone pictures of what we are doing, the Facebook timelines, and the Facetimes keep us glued as a family in a way we didn't, or couldn't, with the first 2.
Now....
It isn't that we, as parents, are hovering over our childrens' lives.
On the contrary, we now have a way -- not perfect-- of continuing to share and celebrate our lives together.
We are connected, and our attachments are real--as they should be--in any thriving and loving extended family.
It provoked the following thoughts...
Parent child relationships have changed over millennia.
There was a time when multiple generations lived in the same town, and constantly interacted with each other, learned from each other, passing down stories, experience, solace, and wisdom...
Then...
Our highly mobile society allowed generations to move out on their own in demographically disparate places....losing that daily contact that gave stability and "place" to family members.
With my first 2 children....who reside elsewhere in the U.S. there wasn't FaceBook, FaceTime, and texting.
With my last 2 children--who also live elsewhere in their own independent careers-- there is.
Our connections are now daily. albeit electronic. Yet the shared thoughts with texting, the daily iPhone pictures of what we are doing, the Facebook timelines, and the Facetimes keep us glued as a family in a way we didn't, or couldn't, with the first 2.
Now....
It isn't that we, as parents, are hovering over our childrens' lives.
On the contrary, we now have a way -- not perfect-- of continuing to share and celebrate our lives together.
We are connected, and our attachments are real--as they should be--in any thriving and loving extended family.
8
... and don't forget: when the "rechargeable" batteries in all those devices don't work and you can't get money from ATMs and you can't go to Starbucks and there's no clean water to drink or to flush your toilet and the power goes off (or is in the hands of terrorists) all the FB and facetime and phone users will SCREAM and there will be long lines at the gas stations! The stuff you mention is NOT "real". As Ta-Nehisi Coates says this is living in the dream. I'm not saying stockpile stuff in a shelter in your backyard or basement but I am saying beware.
1
Just enough information to move the dial up on the anxiety meter for many folks. The research and literature on this area of study, including the associated science on infant temperament and what a child's inherent behavioral tendencies bring to both the attachment equation as infants and later as adults, is immense. No, it's not just your parents' fault...unless you also want to blame them for the genes they gave you, and thus your very existence.
15
Absolutely, parents should also be blamed for existence.
I blame Trump's parents for his narcissistic personality disorder (bankrupts are like that).
More importantly, they must also be blamed for his existence. Now we shall all suffer because of it.
I blame Trump's parents for his narcissistic personality disorder (bankrupts are like that).
More importantly, they must also be blamed for his existence. Now we shall all suffer because of it.
2
This is one of the worst "parent-blaming" articles I have ever read! Good grief. What about other cultures where children happily raise the village or community's children? I have three wonderfully independent young children who I am very close to. I'm delighted that they are able to go to school or a friend's house without falling apart. For their own sake! As for my own selfish concerns, I will admit I do not look forward to the day they go to college and I often wish they were still little toddlers holding my hand, but they are happy happy kids with lovely independent lives (as far as one can be safely independent in grammar school!). I cannot imagine berating myself because they didn't flip out more when I dropped them off for preschool back in the day.
17
I'm not sure I love "gets upset when caretakers leave" as a benchmark of secure attachment. My child runs to me with open arms every afternoon - we are securely attached. But I would be concerned if he cried every morning when I left. Is that really such a good thing? This seems biased in favor of stay-at-home parents.
18
Yes I thought the same thing; my kids were always fine being dropped off at daycare or preschool and would run off to play with the other kids. I interpreted it as they trusted me to come back! But I guess it was just that they had become accustomed to routine neglect...
2
It seems a bit too simplistic to me. I had 3 kids and each had a distinct personality, regardless of how they were cared for. The youngest was always shy and cautious, not because he was raised differently, just because that's the way he was. Also, not mention of birth order. Not impressed.
2
My kids also separated fine at young ages. Don't overthink a blessing.
3
Having parents is hereditary. If your grandparents didn't have any children who reached puberty, chances are you won't either.
13
Oh dear God, stop and look around people.
What you are frequently seeing is the 'There but not there' adult. Yes, it's great that you're taking photos of your baby however, if immediately following that photo you're posting, commenting, and then responding to the instant comments made, you've checked out.
This is the concern. When we hold our babies (remember, this part of brain development is from zero to 3) but put our attention elsewhere, that little brain stops building the neurons needed for secure attachment.
I am not saying 100% of the time! But stop and look at what's happening. Watch todays parents. More and more are not 'there' for their infants. It's fantastic that you are out with the stroller, going to the park. But, when that time is spent talking into your phone rather than engaging in your surroundings, you're infant loses valuable brain development. This is not the same as when baby listens, watches mom talk with other moms. Face to face adults are animated, your baby sees, hears and learns from this. Posting parents are silent and not focused upon their babies.
Breast or bottle? Not the point. Single or married? Not the point. Mommy, Daddy or Nanny? Not the point. It's the 'facetime', that consistent, positive interaction between the adult and the infant that creates the neurological pathways.
Make no mistake about it. This matters. A generation of 'not so securely attached' 20 year olds are raising a newer generation of even less so.
What you are frequently seeing is the 'There but not there' adult. Yes, it's great that you're taking photos of your baby however, if immediately following that photo you're posting, commenting, and then responding to the instant comments made, you've checked out.
This is the concern. When we hold our babies (remember, this part of brain development is from zero to 3) but put our attention elsewhere, that little brain stops building the neurons needed for secure attachment.
I am not saying 100% of the time! But stop and look at what's happening. Watch todays parents. More and more are not 'there' for their infants. It's fantastic that you are out with the stroller, going to the park. But, when that time is spent talking into your phone rather than engaging in your surroundings, you're infant loses valuable brain development. This is not the same as when baby listens, watches mom talk with other moms. Face to face adults are animated, your baby sees, hears and learns from this. Posting parents are silent and not focused upon their babies.
Breast or bottle? Not the point. Single or married? Not the point. Mommy, Daddy or Nanny? Not the point. It's the 'facetime', that consistent, positive interaction between the adult and the infant that creates the neurological pathways.
Make no mistake about it. This matters. A generation of 'not so securely attached' 20 year olds are raising a newer generation of even less so.
298
Thank you for this excellent comment. I teach young children and have come to the conclusion that all the technology families and now school environments utilize has and will continue to accelerate negative consequences. Attention spans shortening, inability to create because of immediate dissatisfaction with their own efforts compared to hitting a button and getting colors, sound, music, and so forth. We must balance these things for both attachment and growth.
5
I live in a neighborhood with many young families and I see parents and caregivers out with babies and toddlers in strollers multiple times daily. And never once is the parent/caregiver not talking on their mobile phone. They don't stop and look at something, they never talk to their child. Yes, sometimes a walk with an infant in a stroller is an attempt to get them settled so they'll sleep, but so many opportunities to engage are missed.
Look at mothers in cars with young children - again, always on their mobile. I found the car to be one of the best places ever to talk to my children, be they 6 months or 16. Parents are squandering valuable moments to engage and bond that are far more important than leaping out of bed in the middle of the night when the child makes a sound.
There is no question that many children today are emotionally neglected by their mothers - yes children whose mothers wanted a child. Unfortunately, many of them saw a child as a stuffed toy, and when they discovered this, pretty much checked out. Such children's needs are not met on virtually all levels, emotional and physical. But those mothers are not reading the NYTimes article.
We have an entire generation of children now in college who cannot deal with any stress or solve their own problems. Their parents substituted engagement with leaping in to solve every problem and woe. Wearing ones baby does not teach the baby how to navigate life's bumps and curve balls.
Look at mothers in cars with young children - again, always on their mobile. I found the car to be one of the best places ever to talk to my children, be they 6 months or 16. Parents are squandering valuable moments to engage and bond that are far more important than leaping out of bed in the middle of the night when the child makes a sound.
There is no question that many children today are emotionally neglected by their mothers - yes children whose mothers wanted a child. Unfortunately, many of them saw a child as a stuffed toy, and when they discovered this, pretty much checked out. Such children's needs are not met on virtually all levels, emotional and physical. But those mothers are not reading the NYTimes article.
We have an entire generation of children now in college who cannot deal with any stress or solve their own problems. Their parents substituted engagement with leaping in to solve every problem and woe. Wearing ones baby does not teach the baby how to navigate life's bumps and curve balls.
9
My father always says, a child who is calm in a new environment is indicative of a consistent, loving environment at home.
6
It could also be indicative of a child who is genetically predisposed to be calm -- some are just calm and others are just born more wary or jumpy -- each personality has its advantages in life.
Saying that any non-calm child must come from a less loving environment is really very judgmental.
Saying that any non-calm child must come from a less loving environment is really very judgmental.
2
Or a not too bright individual. No lights on, no one home.
My kid had a very high IQ and was freaked out by any light, noise or movement from the hour of birth. She got a grip around age seven. She's 23 now, double STEM degree from MIT and securely attached to a fine young man and good job as well.
1
"We live in a culture that celebrates individualism and self-reliance..."
This is typical of many essayists, starting a piece using undefined terms and generalizations. It's not as if these words are self-evident. Quite the contrary.
No wonder confusion and miscommunication reigns in our daily conversations.
This is typical of many essayists, starting a piece using undefined terms and generalizations. It's not as if these words are self-evident. Quite the contrary.
No wonder confusion and miscommunication reigns in our daily conversations.
Of course, if there is no caregiver around, either skipped or in the big house, there is not attachment. Pretty easy to see what this has led to. Anyone know how many were shot in Chicago last night. It was pretty cold, so maybe we got lucky for a change!
"Attachment theory" is just that--a theory. It is not "an answer" to how all those links are formed. There are any number of discussions of the pros and cons: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/lee.html AND https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-22/edition-10/looking-back-mak... .
Ms. Murphy's short essay is arguably too one-sided in its considerations, even considering the limited space available. The "validation" she cites is almost 30 years old.
Ms. Murphy's short essay is arguably too one-sided in its considerations, even considering the limited space available. The "validation" she cites is almost 30 years old.
6
@jsk: The two articles you posted: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/lee.html AND https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-22/edition-10/looking-back-mak... .
are responding to theories that are nearly a half century old.
Look at Dan Siegel's work (there are plenty of links - just search "Dan Siegel" + "attachment theory") to find the much more comprehensive, complex, and multi-faceted contemporary understanding of attachment theory.
are responding to theories that are nearly a half century old.
Look at Dan Siegel's work (there are plenty of links - just search "Dan Siegel" + "attachment theory") to find the much more comprehensive, complex, and multi-faceted contemporary understanding of attachment theory.
1
D Salmon:
I do understand that it gets more complicated: https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/magazine/article/267/psychotherap... . I do not have a favorite guru here, nor am I one to predict future developments. I was more concerned with the "validation" emphasized in Ms. Murphy's essay.
I do understand that it gets more complicated: https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/magazine/article/267/psychotherap... . I do not have a favorite guru here, nor am I one to predict future developments. I was more concerned with the "validation" emphasized in Ms. Murphy's essay.
Through personal experience, I have come to believe that when an infant opens its eyes to the world for the first time, it needs to have a specific visual experience, even though it will obviously be incapable of articulating that need: to see the reliably steady and loving gaze of its mother. The child will need that experience to feel a part of the world, to feel welcome. That experience will be how the child comes to bond to its own worth and ultimately to a secure attachment to its purpose in being alive.
Any child who, that first time, sadly, sees little or nothing within his mother's eyes is very likely to mostly vanish from his own life. What little is left is very likely to feel like someone else's as he desperately flails about trying to find in another's gaze what he missed in that of his mother.
Trust me, such a fate is miserable. Little is left that feels authentic, especially the self. Life FEELS stupid. I KNOW it to be otherwise, that it's actually enchanted, but it sometimes feels stupid.
According to Einstein, "either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle." I know it can't possibly be this simple, but perhaps any kid lucky enough to have securely attached to the world having first securely attached to his mother will come to truly feel that "everything is a miracle" and continue to life an enchanted life. And then there are the rest of us.
I am grateful for Kate Murphy's fine article. It helps.
Any child who, that first time, sadly, sees little or nothing within his mother's eyes is very likely to mostly vanish from his own life. What little is left is very likely to feel like someone else's as he desperately flails about trying to find in another's gaze what he missed in that of his mother.
Trust me, such a fate is miserable. Little is left that feels authentic, especially the self. Life FEELS stupid. I KNOW it to be otherwise, that it's actually enchanted, but it sometimes feels stupid.
According to Einstein, "either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle." I know it can't possibly be this simple, but perhaps any kid lucky enough to have securely attached to the world having first securely attached to his mother will come to truly feel that "everything is a miracle" and continue to life an enchanted life. And then there are the rest of us.
I am grateful for Kate Murphy's fine article. It helps.
9
And you experienced this how? Infants open their eyes at birth. They see the midwife, doctor, paramedic, or cop. Hopefully, they are handed to their mother while the placenta is delivered and the cord cut. Then they are wiped clean of blood and weighed. The doctor gives them an Apgar score.
They are diapered, swaddled to some degree, and a hat is put on their head. After that, if the child is healthy, it's a matter of hospital policy, social norms, and the mother's health.
If the child is not healthy, there are different protocols depending on the health problem.
The newborn is seeing for the first time, so fear or comfort at what the baby sees are your projections. It's all new to the baby and while it may worry you, the baby is mostly surprised at being ejected from the womb, the only place he's known. Confusion probably abounds, but we usually manage to survive birth, no matter what the local birthing customs are.
Keep the baby dry and warm. Feed as needed. Talk softly and cuddle babies--all babies. Don't worry so much. Babies pick up on worry, anger, frustration, and the like as readily as they pick up on love and the desire to comfort.
The mother needs to relax and enjoy the child. Don't hang a bunch of psychobabble on her. She'll probably do fine. If she can't or won't, you won't help.
They are diapered, swaddled to some degree, and a hat is put on their head. After that, if the child is healthy, it's a matter of hospital policy, social norms, and the mother's health.
If the child is not healthy, there are different protocols depending on the health problem.
The newborn is seeing for the first time, so fear or comfort at what the baby sees are your projections. It's all new to the baby and while it may worry you, the baby is mostly surprised at being ejected from the womb, the only place he's known. Confusion probably abounds, but we usually manage to survive birth, no matter what the local birthing customs are.
Keep the baby dry and warm. Feed as needed. Talk softly and cuddle babies--all babies. Don't worry so much. Babies pick up on worry, anger, frustration, and the like as readily as they pick up on love and the desire to comfort.
The mother needs to relax and enjoy the child. Don't hang a bunch of psychobabble on her. She'll probably do fine. If she can't or won't, you won't help.
1
All those poor c-section babies, relegated to a miserable existence!
--signed, a mother who had both vaginal and c-section births, breastfed and bottle fed, did crying it out with one child who was miserable without sleep and not with the others, and knows for a fact that each child was already uniquely herself (and needed and wanted to be treated as such!) before any of my interventions.
--signed, a mother who had both vaginal and c-section births, breastfed and bottle fed, did crying it out with one child who was miserable without sleep and not with the others, and knows for a fact that each child was already uniquely herself (and needed and wanted to be treated as such!) before any of my interventions.
1
One of the attachment theorists account for the most important variable: what if the failure to attach is due to a problem inherent in the baby's brain? Some babies don't produce sufficient oxytocin. That, and not bad parenting, is a better explanation for the failure to attach. The idea that up to 50% of parents are so deficient as to cause attachment problems is absurd
2
Make that: none of the attachment theorists
1
This understanding of attachments intuitively makes sense. Unfortunately for me, and many others I am sure, what resonates most deeply regarding early attachment is a statement made by Rodney Dangerfield: "My mother never breast fed me. She said she didn't know me well enough."
3
No wonder so many young Americans are glued to their cell phones.
A sad state of affairs.
A sad state of affairs.
5
I wonder about the use of the word "attachment" here. My concern goes back to Siddartha, the Buddha's, insight, that has proved correct for 2500 years, that our "attachment" to our fears and desires is what makes us miserable. In other words, it is not "fear" or "desire" that is hurtful; it is our attachment to, our need for, certain fears or certain desires that makes us miserable (and can make people in our circle unhappy as well).
My sense from this article is that the people who embrace modern "attachment theory" would not disagree with the Buddha insight; if so, then we're generating a problematical confusion.
My sense from this article is that the people who embrace modern "attachment theory" would not disagree with the Buddha insight; if so, then we're generating a problematical confusion.
1
Many of the criticisms of attachment theory appear to be based solely on the information presented in this article (which, given the limited space, was quite well-presented, I believe).
it is certainly true, there's a kind of inertia in the field of psychology that steers researchers and practitioners toward the isolated individual and/or limited family dynamics, ignoring biological predisposition, epigenetic changes, societal influence and philosophic concerns.
However, despite the limitations of particular writers or practitioners, the field as a whole has long taken into account all of these factors. For example, George Engel presented his "bio-psycho-social" theory (that, as it sounds, is grounded in all three domains) in 1977.
Over 20+ years, Dan Siegel has developed "interpersonal neurobiology" (IPNB for short). Describing the importance of all these factors, he sees the "brain" as involving both "neuro" *and* biology; the "brain" is spread out through the body, in at least a metaphorical sense. And our neurobiology is inseparable from the interpersonal (both individual and societal relationships).
And all of Dr. Siegel's works are informed by a rich philosophic knowledge, particularly the work of philosopher/physicist Michel Bitbol (see his "Is Consciousness Primary?").
There are many more like Siegel and Engel. Attachment theory, rooted in this integrative framework, is not the limited caricature appearing in some comments.
http://www.remember-to-breathe.org
it is certainly true, there's a kind of inertia in the field of psychology that steers researchers and practitioners toward the isolated individual and/or limited family dynamics, ignoring biological predisposition, epigenetic changes, societal influence and philosophic concerns.
However, despite the limitations of particular writers or practitioners, the field as a whole has long taken into account all of these factors. For example, George Engel presented his "bio-psycho-social" theory (that, as it sounds, is grounded in all three domains) in 1977.
Over 20+ years, Dan Siegel has developed "interpersonal neurobiology" (IPNB for short). Describing the importance of all these factors, he sees the "brain" as involving both "neuro" *and* biology; the "brain" is spread out through the body, in at least a metaphorical sense. And our neurobiology is inseparable from the interpersonal (both individual and societal relationships).
And all of Dr. Siegel's works are informed by a rich philosophic knowledge, particularly the work of philosopher/physicist Michel Bitbol (see his "Is Consciousness Primary?").
There are many more like Siegel and Engel. Attachment theory, rooted in this integrative framework, is not the limited caricature appearing in some comments.
http://www.remember-to-breathe.org
7
The author seems unaware of the robust body of Nursing Research promoting attachment behavior. The practice of holding an infant and breastfeeding immediately after birth are just a few methods promoted by Nursing Research. Home visiting by college educated Public Health Nurses is an effective pro-attachment intervention but has been heavily affected by the "government is the problem" craze. Long term parental leave, quality health care and child care are also effective attachment interventions because they reduce family stress. It takes time to attach, and stress robs the brain of time. I suggest another consideration, cell phones. Chronemic research suggests texting may actually change our feelings about others. Does this then affect attachment? How intrusive are text pings during even simple tasks such as diaper changes? How much can these devices affect the growing brains of children?
7
Please stop quoting that incorrect divorce data. Once you said 40-50% I knew none of this article was researched well. CDC is reporting 3.2 divorces per 1000 people.
3
That 1000 people includes *everyone* -- children, never-married adults, etc. So although it is a measure of divorce rates, it doesn't mean what most people think of when talking about divorce rates, i.e., marriages that end in divorce. The 50% number probably doesn't mean what most people think, either (just a guess on my part).
Take a look at how divorce rates are determined: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/15983/
Take a look at how divorce rates are determined: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/15983/
4
Oh please. Attachment impact is negligible compared with DNA. The baby doesn't come without bringing her/his own temperament to relationships. It's a disservice to everyone to publish an article like this without saying so.
19
Any amount of awesome DNA can be overridden by persistent psychological neglect of an infant. It's astounding that this point even has to be made in this day and age, given the power of the evidence.
4
Certainly children who have A1 parenting - love and affection, attention, contact, routines, and strong boundaries and rules to live within, have a good chance of developing the sort of internal self discipline that allows them to be secure adults.
But if not having A1 parenting is the root of all problems we are in for a world of hurt, because even good parents are flawed.
I'd like more people to be able to learn how to be better parents, from simple skills like talking to kids, reading to them, maintaining a predictable and secure schedule of sleeping and eating, to better ways to discipline. It can only help children.
But putting all the focus on early childhood is silly, when careful and loving parents can lose influence to anything from street gangs to a lousy group of friends. A child from a secure and loving home can still grow up to be bitter about not getting the Lexus for Christmas or a house with granite countertops and a huge walk-in closet. Values are not built only in the first years of life.
Placing emphasis on solely on attachment is like placing emphasis solely on self-esteem. It gives us an incentive to over-react to only one aspect of development, and create new problems.
But if not having A1 parenting is the root of all problems we are in for a world of hurt, because even good parents are flawed.
I'd like more people to be able to learn how to be better parents, from simple skills like talking to kids, reading to them, maintaining a predictable and secure schedule of sleeping and eating, to better ways to discipline. It can only help children.
But putting all the focus on early childhood is silly, when careful and loving parents can lose influence to anything from street gangs to a lousy group of friends. A child from a secure and loving home can still grow up to be bitter about not getting the Lexus for Christmas or a house with granite countertops and a huge walk-in closet. Values are not built only in the first years of life.
Placing emphasis on solely on attachment is like placing emphasis solely on self-esteem. It gives us an incentive to over-react to only one aspect of development, and create new problems.
63
The title is misleading. However, I think it's worthwhile to advocate for the needs of infants, toddlers, and children and home and school. Babies need to be soothed, engaged, and attached to reliable adults. This includes both parents, caretakers, and teachers, most of whom are women, but don't have to be. Even when mothers can't breastfeed (where you are literally attached to baby throughout the day and night), children thrive when their need for love, attention, play, care, safety, and routine are met. This requires a supportive society. The early years are critical, and so are all the other years. Children are especially vulnerable before their capacity for language is developed, and social insecurity is also directly tied to meeting Maslow's famous hierarchy of needs at a parental, extended family, and societal level. This article, and often psychological theories (at least when explained in laymen terms) try to isolate the individual as a variable or actor in a staged play when it is the dynamism, fragility, and resilience of humanity born into specific families in specific environments, at specific historical moments that creates security and allegiance to others. For instance, how do you think the attachment of Syrian infants and children fleeing war has been affected? How are people attached to their national identities when betrayed by their leaders?
51
No mom stares into the baby's eyes the whole time she is breast-feeding. Breast-feeding takes an incredible amount of time per 24 hour cycle. It is a dramatically slower process than bottlefeeding. Back in the day, I could only thank God, as I sat there hour after hour, for TV, friends, books and magazines. (That having been said, I loved breast-feeding, which compares to no other experience in life.)
(In my family, the electronics became a problem only when the kids started demanding them. This happens earlier and earlier today, and it is very difficult to delay and then to set reasonable rules in the world in which everything single little kid is wired 24-seven. But that's a topic for another day.)
(In my family, the electronics became a problem only when the kids started demanding them. This happens earlier and earlier today, and it is very difficult to delay and then to set reasonable rules in the world in which everything single little kid is wired 24-seven. But that's a topic for another day.)
1
I'm curious how distracted parenting as a result of cell phones, tablets, Facebook, etc will influence attachment for current generations? Mom might be breastfeeding but is likely also doing something else...
79
On one hand I agree, but realistically most mothers throughout our history have probably been doing something else while breastfeeding -- talking to other kids or adults, eating, reading a book.
It can take up to 40 minutes to feed a baby, and when you do it 8 times a day, you realistically aren't always going to be gazing into their eyes the whole time.
It can take up to 40 minutes to feed a baby, and when you do it 8 times a day, you realistically aren't always going to be gazing into their eyes the whole time.
53
My mother read to my older brother or called an excessively chatty friend while breastfeeding me. She commented that I was the slowest eater she'd seen. I'm sure mothers throughout history have read, knit, talked, daydreamed, and even slept while nursing. We like to think that "today" is unique --uniquely good or uniquely bad--but it really isn't.
3
And no women in the past had distractions? Telephone, TV, radio, magazines/papers, supervising four or more other small children, endless cleaning, endless laundry, endless cooking, mending, knitting, gathering firewood, tending animals, yelling to neighbors, arguing with co-housed relatives, piecework at home,factory work, farm field work? And what about all the women who essentially had to pay short shrift to their own kids to work as full time nannies for rich peoples' kids?
4
Gotta love psychology. It is basically applied philosophy. As a philosopher, I see the futility, if not danger, in such as the application of most anything requires, necessarily, the creation of universals, of absolutes: people are either X, Y, or Z...but you're all individuals too! After all, when one looks at individuals to seek out support for hypotheses to create theories (partly, so one can write and sell a text or, more the rage in respect to children/parenting, create a program to train someone, for a price), one takes these notions of the individual...and then generalizes them. They are not profitable, in any sense of the word, nor deemed useful otherwise. You-singular must be approached as you-plural, else we don't know what to do with you. Ironically, we will study you as an individual, and give you nifty little gift cards for playing in our box, but we will not heal you as an individual, because we MUST have a guiding theory (all that critical thinking buried under ever-changing dogma; funny if not so sad).
We tend to focus on the individual using generic, if you will, knowledge. We apply the average as a rule, and expect the individual to fit (if not conform), even if we've decided there are multiple categories. One *must* fall into a category; no outliers allowed in Good Theory!
So merrily goes "science."
I suggest Chuangtzu and a bit of skipping through the woods whilst slapping one's behind. Far better therapy, and far more fun.
We tend to focus on the individual using generic, if you will, knowledge. We apply the average as a rule, and expect the individual to fit (if not conform), even if we've decided there are multiple categories. One *must* fall into a category; no outliers allowed in Good Theory!
So merrily goes "science."
I suggest Chuangtzu and a bit of skipping through the woods whilst slapping one's behind. Far better therapy, and far more fun.
1
Sounds like a great way to get arrested, doing that with children near other parents....
It always worries me when i see people with their babies in strollers facing forward, they can't see it, but invariably, the babies are twisting and turning to look at their parents. Please, people, turn your babies around !! They don't want to see the world right now, they want to see YOU!
6
Ok, but until what month?
2
I agree that babies need to see their mother and father but most strollers are designed to face forward. Parents can stop frequently to interact with their children when the children are in the stroller, parents can also talk to their children while perambulating. When my eldest was an infant he traveled countless miles while I walked with him in a forward facing umbrella stroller and he is a secure and self-confident as an adult, we are also very close.
For new or soon-to-be parents, a great practical resource on this topic is Hughes' "Attachment-Focused Parenting."
2
I received inconsistent attachment early on, watched myself repeat that in intimacy seeking and found a good enough therapist to change my expectations. What is at the heart of this is that we need another person to arrive at the ability to stand on our own. When that doesn't happen, we can still achieve that and live a good and meaningful life. We do this for one another, no god required!
9
I'm having a hard time understanding how this is "news". Attachment Theory and its implications were discussed in a Developmental Psychology course I took as an undergraduate over 20 years ago. I used its significant findings to inform my later graduate work and early childhood teaching, and also as a parent. How and why popular discourse is so behind in applying what professionals know best for our young children is baffling. Happy to hear of resources that are supporting more healthy attachments between children and their caregivers, but really, the bigger story here is how our society ignores what is known best to give our generations the best chances for happiness and success.
5
I got to know Mary Ainsworth well during my assistant professor years (1975-82) at UVirginia when (as a statistical scientist) I worked closely with faculty in its top-tier program in developmental psychology. Mary was a total class act and one of the most memorable researchers I ever worked with--for all the right reasons.
A short story Mary told me, one I have retold countless times to make a point.
We were in her office chatting about what characteristics make the best grad students. Above all, it was creativity, we agreed. Mary said she once had a PhD student who did stellar work in her courses and on her doctoral exams, but had never shown the kind and level of creativity needed to do a first-rate dissertation. "Oh, you want me to be creative? asked the student. "I can do that." And from that moment forward, the student was.
A short story Mary told me, one I have retold countless times to make a point.
We were in her office chatting about what characteristics make the best grad students. Above all, it was creativity, we agreed. Mary said she once had a PhD student who did stellar work in her courses and on her doctoral exams, but had never shown the kind and level of creativity needed to do a first-rate dissertation. "Oh, you want me to be creative? asked the student. "I can do that." And from that moment forward, the student was.
3
Thank you for sharing this anecdote. I admire the work of Ainsworth.
2
For me this is the first time ever that the comments section seems better informed than the article. The article over attributes personality, specifically attachment preferences (Agreeableness and Extraversion? Maybe also Neuroticism) to "nurture" It is not popular but it is certain that the environment plays much less of a role in shaping behaviors and temperament than once thought (hoped?). We are not tabla rasa (blank slates). Another unpopular but certain conclusion of the empirical cited here - childcare is not as good as a stay at home parent - goes unaddressed. Social science research on childcare has been so political that studies that included life outcomes like anxiety and self esteem in their data collection don't report the results but instead submit manuscripts that focus on banal finding such as "children of working parents are more likely to work." All in all the Times takes a shallow and at the same time selective view of attachment theory and its implications but several posts here are much more complete and thoughtful.
7
How typical for the title of the article to cheapen the very content of its subject.
If its "your parents' fault" then its their parents' fault etc. etc. Hopefully each new generation makes steps toward...what? Improving upon the mistakes of the past. It is also a confusion to suggest the so-called helicopter parent is the same as a parent who is extremely attached. Attachment parenting, first and foremost, values trust.
If its "your parents' fault" then its their parents' fault etc. etc. Hopefully each new generation makes steps toward...what? Improving upon the mistakes of the past. It is also a confusion to suggest the so-called helicopter parent is the same as a parent who is extremely attached. Attachment parenting, first and foremost, values trust.
6
"But these children aren’t easily soothed, usually because the caregiver has proved to be an unreliable source of comfort in the past."
What about children who are just "unsoothable" under any circumstances? There exists, I assure you, children who, despite both parents falling over themselves to be sources of comfort, have daily tantrums that last well into their early teens. It is hugely frustrating. I agree with some other comments here that "attachment theory" is overly simplistic.
What about children who are just "unsoothable" under any circumstances? There exists, I assure you, children who, despite both parents falling over themselves to be sources of comfort, have daily tantrums that last well into their early teens. It is hugely frustrating. I agree with some other comments here that "attachment theory" is overly simplistic.
113
“Brat”, “incorrigible”, and “inconsolable” are labels thrown at children who are exceptionally distraught. They have an unmet need, pain, discomfort or agitation (medical, innate, rational, irrational, a trauma unseen by caretakers) that the parents are unable to identify and the child certainly cannot articulate. Telling a kid they have no legitimate reason to suffer only makes them seem and feel like ingrates.
In the name of positive reinforcement or setting limits approval, connection, and validation are wielded as prizes to be won by acceptable behaviour. The kid senses they are repellent when suffering. Greater outbursts or depressions are rebuffed or punished with emotionally exile (aka “The Silent Treatment”). The very people whom they innately turn to for soothing have become part of the pain source. For the kid, having parents who are unable or unwilling to tolerate their suffering can lead to abusive relationships, where this pattern of need and rejection is normalized and accepted as inevitable.
Inconsolable kids require a different kind of communication, intervention or understanding. What they need is to know they are inherently worthy as humans even at their worst, and that their unknowable pain is worth seeking a cure.
In the name of positive reinforcement or setting limits approval, connection, and validation are wielded as prizes to be won by acceptable behaviour. The kid senses they are repellent when suffering. Greater outbursts or depressions are rebuffed or punished with emotionally exile (aka “The Silent Treatment”). The very people whom they innately turn to for soothing have become part of the pain source. For the kid, having parents who are unable or unwilling to tolerate their suffering can lead to abusive relationships, where this pattern of need and rejection is normalized and accepted as inevitable.
Inconsolable kids require a different kind of communication, intervention or understanding. What they need is to know they are inherently worthy as humans even at their worst, and that their unknowable pain is worth seeking a cure.
3
It would seem therefore that anybody born in the baby boom generation has an attachment disorder. We had cloth, not disposable diapers; the bottle, not the breast'; spent days and sometimes weeks, without tactile stimulation, in incubators because many of us were born premature as a side effect of a mother who smoked; got spanked, not soothed, when were in distress; licked our wounds in private and learned never to cry; were to be seen and not heard; were brainwashed before the age of reason to attach to scary, punitive God; and, lived under the constant background threat of nuclear Armageddon.
So, to survive, we detached from feeling - split ourselves off from our emotions and our body (where emotions are felt). But in so doing, we become riddled with cognitive, affective and physiological rifts that disconnect us from ourselves and people.
The hurtful impacts are enormous and long lasting and the road to recovery may take a lifetime.
So, to survive, we detached from feeling - split ourselves off from our emotions and our body (where emotions are felt). But in so doing, we become riddled with cognitive, affective and physiological rifts that disconnect us from ourselves and people.
The hurtful impacts are enormous and long lasting and the road to recovery may take a lifetime.
110
I think you're being sarcastic? The thing this article doesn't address is that attachment isn't about all that stuff. Attachment is so basically natural that it's actually pretty hard to screw up when conditions are good enough. "Good enough" really does work and throughout history and cultures parents and children attach effectively in myriad ways without how to books!
Exactly, Rebecca--and I know prominent psychologists have made that point--but the article and especially its bad headline imply otherwise. But perhaps that was the point. So many articles nowadays seem intended to make people angry so they'll read.
"Good Enough" is exactly the key so thanks for mentioning it.
I don't know. I've been thirty years happily married because, I think, I saw my parents as attached to each other, not us kids. I see young parents more attached to their kids than each other - bad for hopes of a long marriage, bad example for the children, just the wrong family dynamic altogether.
173
I started that questionnaire, and soon gave up. It keeps asking the same bad questions over and over again in different form. The questions are useless because I kept thinking, "it varied" when they asked about the past, and "does not apply" when it asked about a current partner...
10
"Conceived more than 50 years ago by the British psychoanalyst John Bowlby and scientifically validated by an American developmental psychologist, Mary S. Ainsworth, attachment theory is now having a breakout moment..."
This is what's wrong with the NYT's approach to science. The single article cited in this link is a non-quantitative opinion piece about attachment theory. I appreciate that this article was not placed in the science section, but using the phrase "scientifically validated" with this link demonstrates a scientific illiteracy that should be embarrassing to the author, her editor and perhaps even the publisher.
I understand that the NYT is now more focused on selling identity politics stories to a target audience of hipsters and progressives, but please run lines like this past one of the old school science writers before publishing anything so nonsensical.
This is what's wrong with the NYT's approach to science. The single article cited in this link is a non-quantitative opinion piece about attachment theory. I appreciate that this article was not placed in the science section, but using the phrase "scientifically validated" with this link demonstrates a scientific illiteracy that should be embarrassing to the author, her editor and perhaps even the publisher.
I understand that the NYT is now more focused on selling identity politics stories to a target audience of hipsters and progressives, but please run lines like this past one of the old school science writers before publishing anything so nonsensical.
4
would "empirically validated" make you happy? You're complaining about something - I wonder what it is.
2
Here is the problem with attachment theory. It originated in artificial environment of psychology "labs" where the caregiver was ALWAYS THE MOTHER. Therefore, if you are "insecurely attached" it is because you have a poor relationship with your mother (read it is HER fault as she is emotionally distant etc etc). There was no investigation of other social relationships, social networks, SES, environmental factors (e.g. poverty). This is an OLD theory that is just being recycled. READ THE LITERATURE and evaluate. My evaluation is that this is psychological "hooey" that is validated by clinical psychologists who simply appeal to its veracity by claiming "it rings so true". This was a major reason I decided that much of psychological research was simply the result of social consensus and perceptual bias. Read Kahneman & Tversky, and Richard Nisbett.
4
Don't forget that the classic research by Mary Ainsworth published in "Infancy in Uganda" is not subject to these criticisms. I agree, though, that blaming the mother is not justified.
It's too bad you didn't take this opportunity to detail how the use of cellphones and other electronic devices creates insecure anxious/ambivalent attachment. This may be as great a threat to our survival as climate change.
It's not just about replacing face-to-face relating with text/electronic communication. The real damage is in the quality and duration of parents' attention. The intervals at which we use our devices sets the attention pattern of our children for life (unless there is correction, which takes time, intent and skill). The quality of our attention determines the level of secure attachment our children learn.
For those interested in raising healthy children: All sorts of presence practices like sensing and meditation teach us to actually fully be where we are. Ray Castellino teaches families and therapists to first tell other humans you are going to move your touch and/or you attention to something else before switching. This is calming rather than startling to the nervous system (the attachment system is part of the nervous system... see Steven Porges' work). Diane Poole Heller teaches therapist how to repair attachment with Somatic Experiencing therapy. Dan Siegel's work unpacks the neurobiology of attachment.
There's nothing better you can do for your kids (and for yourself) than to understand attachment theory and how to repair insecure attachment or avert creating it. We can all learn simple tools, but it does require less screen time.
It's not just about replacing face-to-face relating with text/electronic communication. The real damage is in the quality and duration of parents' attention. The intervals at which we use our devices sets the attention pattern of our children for life (unless there is correction, which takes time, intent and skill). The quality of our attention determines the level of secure attachment our children learn.
For those interested in raising healthy children: All sorts of presence practices like sensing and meditation teach us to actually fully be where we are. Ray Castellino teaches families and therapists to first tell other humans you are going to move your touch and/or you attention to something else before switching. This is calming rather than startling to the nervous system (the attachment system is part of the nervous system... see Steven Porges' work). Diane Poole Heller teaches therapist how to repair attachment with Somatic Experiencing therapy. Dan Siegel's work unpacks the neurobiology of attachment.
There's nothing better you can do for your kids (and for yourself) than to understand attachment theory and how to repair insecure attachment or avert creating it. We can all learn simple tools, but it does require less screen time.
2
The article states, "Given that the divorce rate is also 40 percent to 50 percent, it would seem that this is not an easy task."
The 40-50% reference is potentially misleading. Though it is often claimed that half of all marriages end in divorce, according to an article in "The Upshot" here in the NYTImes two years ago (Dec 2,2014), "The Divorce Surge is Over, but the Myth Lives on":
"It is no longer true that the divorce rate is rising, or that half of all marriages end in divorce. It has not been for some time. Even though social scientists have tried to debunk those myths, somehow the conventional wisdom has held."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-...
The 40-50% reference is potentially misleading. Though it is often claimed that half of all marriages end in divorce, according to an article in "The Upshot" here in the NYTImes two years ago (Dec 2,2014), "The Divorce Surge is Over, but the Myth Lives on":
"It is no longer true that the divorce rate is rising, or that half of all marriages end in divorce. It has not been for some time. Even though social scientists have tried to debunk those myths, somehow the conventional wisdom has held."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-...
1
Nothing could be more important than to spread the word on fostering attachment, and the fact that preverbal systems are so powerful over the life span.
Baby humans need what they need, and when they get it, mental health results.
Baby humans need what they need, and when they get it, mental health results.
10
I bought into many of the tenets of attachment parenting and later the positive parenting movement....and I really believe it's worked wonders. Although each are vastly different children, my now teenagers are confident, respectful and optimistic in a way I never was..... I believe it has everything to do with the fact they were doted on from day one.
For the record, by doting I don't mean to imply they were spoiled. Rather they were thoughtfully parented.... loved unconditionally, and actively, but with an emphasis on community, responsibility and growth.
.....but of all things we've done, that early AP approach did seem to seal something in their psyche that keeps on paying dividends. They are innately cheerful and optimistic and I've long concluded it came from that AP mindset.
For the record, by doting I don't mean to imply they were spoiled. Rather they were thoughtfully parented.... loved unconditionally, and actively, but with an emphasis on community, responsibility and growth.
.....but of all things we've done, that early AP approach did seem to seal something in their psyche that keeps on paying dividends. They are innately cheerful and optimistic and I've long concluded it came from that AP mindset.
5
Congratulations.
Your words resonate. I did all that, too. I really mean it. Even armed with an Ivy League degree in child-development psychology.
I have more of a mixed outcome picture to report.
My firstborn, now 27, secretly devolved into substance abuse during the years after college. She is now unemployed and in and out of rehab. It would be hard to communicate to an uninitiated parent the devastation wrought by a substance-abusing child. This daughter also suffers from something that looks very much like borderline personality disorder (which afflicted my late mother also). Her promising career is now aborted and her future uncertain. I cannot connect the person she is today with the baby and child she was yesterday.
My second child was always oppositional to varying degrees, reminiscent of my very stubborn, difficult brother. Now, at 22, he is strikingly handsome and sharp-minded young man with a great education, but with a degree of arrogance that can put others off. Our other concern is that he exhibits a degree of "moral flexibility" that troubles us. His primary focus is and has always been himself.
My third child, age 16, seems to be very well adjusted in most ways. She is, however, a slower learner and this has led to self-esteem problems. She is likable and stable and sweet, however, and I predict a rewarding and positive life for her.
Just one anecdote from a doting attachment parent.
Your words resonate. I did all that, too. I really mean it. Even armed with an Ivy League degree in child-development psychology.
I have more of a mixed outcome picture to report.
My firstborn, now 27, secretly devolved into substance abuse during the years after college. She is now unemployed and in and out of rehab. It would be hard to communicate to an uninitiated parent the devastation wrought by a substance-abusing child. This daughter also suffers from something that looks very much like borderline personality disorder (which afflicted my late mother also). Her promising career is now aborted and her future uncertain. I cannot connect the person she is today with the baby and child she was yesterday.
My second child was always oppositional to varying degrees, reminiscent of my very stubborn, difficult brother. Now, at 22, he is strikingly handsome and sharp-minded young man with a great education, but with a degree of arrogance that can put others off. Our other concern is that he exhibits a degree of "moral flexibility" that troubles us. His primary focus is and has always been himself.
My third child, age 16, seems to be very well adjusted in most ways. She is, however, a slower learner and this has led to self-esteem problems. She is likable and stable and sweet, however, and I predict a rewarding and positive life for her.
Just one anecdote from a doting attachment parent.
2
Anonymous Mom:
Thank you. My kids are only teenagers and I know that that this is a marathon and not a sprint. Your post moved me to tears.
When I wrote my comment--I was thinking of the young parents reading them. I was thinking about the times that I have marveled at my kids' disposition, their innate ability to connect and trust. In those moments when I have contemplated how I, ground zero for self doubt, could have churned out such generally trusting people, I always think back to AP. In those moment of total introspection about what has gone right, I think back to their first years when everything they did was met with love, acceptance and humor.
Having not been raised *quite* that way---and since it is not my normal nature to as patient as I managed in those early days. I am grateful to the AP books I read that gave me permission to give in to the pursuit of wholly being there for my kids. I was very lucky I was able to do that....and that when we had childcare, that philosophy was carried out. I believe that set the foundation but I don't discount all the good fortune I had in getting the information but also in having the tools to carry it out.
But that hardly makes me a superior parent--and it doesn't inoculate my kids from further twists in the road. I was helped by a mode of thinking and by kids prewired to accept it.
But no, kids are not cupcakes that can be baked perfectly if you use the right ingredients. My parents could better tell you that than me! ;-)
Thank you. My kids are only teenagers and I know that that this is a marathon and not a sprint. Your post moved me to tears.
When I wrote my comment--I was thinking of the young parents reading them. I was thinking about the times that I have marveled at my kids' disposition, their innate ability to connect and trust. In those moments when I have contemplated how I, ground zero for self doubt, could have churned out such generally trusting people, I always think back to AP. In those moment of total introspection about what has gone right, I think back to their first years when everything they did was met with love, acceptance and humor.
Having not been raised *quite* that way---and since it is not my normal nature to as patient as I managed in those early days. I am grateful to the AP books I read that gave me permission to give in to the pursuit of wholly being there for my kids. I was very lucky I was able to do that....and that when we had childcare, that philosophy was carried out. I believe that set the foundation but I don't discount all the good fortune I had in getting the information but also in having the tools to carry it out.
But that hardly makes me a superior parent--and it doesn't inoculate my kids from further twists in the road. I was helped by a mode of thinking and by kids prewired to accept it.
But no, kids are not cupcakes that can be baked perfectly if you use the right ingredients. My parents could better tell you that than me! ;-)
1
(cont)
I wanted to, say too, that I am sorry your children are experiencing difficulties--particularly the drug abuse which is so painful.
It sound like they are very luck to have a mom like you.
xoxo
I wanted to, say too, that I am sorry your children are experiencing difficulties--particularly the drug abuse which is so painful.
It sound like they are very luck to have a mom like you.
xoxo
1
Attachment theory is just a theory. I've been in the mental health field for more than 45 years. Theories come and go. At least we don't believe anymore that autism is caused by 'refrigerator" mother or that schizophrenia is caused by parents putting their child in a "double bind."
11
The difference is that that Attachment Theory produces testable hypotheses and has 50 years of research that supports it.
2
Looks like attachment theory is being appropriated from the adoption reading list to check if "normal" kids and adults have acceptable behaviours?
I object to researchers' characterizations of insecurely attached people as "subconsciously [acting] in ways to elicit . . . abusive behavior." Abusive behavior is not the fault of the victim - - it's the fault of the abuser, who has made a choice to behave in a certain way. For more confirmation of this view, read literature from the (anti) domestic violence movement.
4
I was also brought up short by that unfortunate wording.
I think the concept they were trying to get at was that people who have suffered a certain kind of abuse early in life remain vulnerable to that kind of abuse. It feels "normal." There should be no implication, however, of victim-blaming.
I think the concept they were trying to get at was that people who have suffered a certain kind of abuse early in life remain vulnerable to that kind of abuse. It feels "normal." There should be no implication, however, of victim-blaming.
6
At least I understand November 8, 2016 a little better now.
3
The Jesuit Order has coined it in most simple ways;
"Give Us the Child; You Can Have the Man".
"Give Us the Child; You Can Have the Man".
2
We see the impact of intact, functional families on outcomes all the time. It is good to have it validated but it is so obvious in our daily lives, in the people we see and interact with that parenting should be required in high school.
2
Another excuse for people to avoid responsibility for their actions. It's not my fault! Enough! We have a society of people who blame others--for everything. Accepting responsibility and moving on is called growing up.
23
It's not avoiding responsibility for conduct, it's explaining why the conduct occurs. Blame and guilt are religious concepts best left in the dark ages, along with the Spanish Inquisition. Once upon a time, poor dirty people were blamed for getting cholera due to their "lifestyle", but then we discovered the virus and bacteria that cause it, and the problem has been almost completely eliminated.
We need to know why Dad passed out from drug abuse, or why Mom left them alone, and how that affects Child, to make sure it doesn't happen to our next generation. Better parents will make better citizens, less crime, less drug abuse, and better workers.
We need to know why Dad passed out from drug abuse, or why Mom left them alone, and how that affects Child, to make sure it doesn't happen to our next generation. Better parents will make better citizens, less crime, less drug abuse, and better workers.
3
An entire article on childhood development with nary a mention of innate personality? Any parent of more than one child can tell you how much is beyond a caretaker's control, which is why siblings often develop and bond with others in vastly different ways. Whatever happened to the nature in nature vs. nurture?
188
On a positive note - as a parent, what a wonderful time we live in. We understand so much more than our parents did. We complain about this tech-driven, fast paced life, but with information like this, at the stroke of a key, I think we underestimate how much power we have to better ourselves each day. My 6 siblings an I had less than optimal childhoods. The screen I'm looking at right now gives my child a better chance... Thx Ms. Murphy :)
41
Very interesting article (and no, I'm not the Kenneth Levy who is cited). I’ve noticed four things about people and attachment over the last 30 years, some of them just over the last 10:
1. There’s no such thing as a female loner.
2. Having lived in the North and now the South, many more people up there can live without a relationship and do just fine. Not so much down here – everybody just *has* to get married, even if takes several tries.
3. The average cell phone conversation is too loud, depressingly empty, and seriously annoying.
4. Pets - for me, dogs - are much better friends all around than humans.
The first three observations share something in common: too many people just can’t be alone for more than a few minutes without experiencing serious anxiety or even panic. A big part of it is probably what is discussed in this article - attachment styles developed in childhood. But I think that there are two other contributors as well: local culture and excessive fear of boredom combined with a learned inability to alleviate it through any other means than conversation, however unfulfilling.
My only plea for anybody who reads this is to take your cell phone conversation *outside*. The rest of us who can live without constantly yapping are trying to concentrate.
1. There’s no such thing as a female loner.
2. Having lived in the North and now the South, many more people up there can live without a relationship and do just fine. Not so much down here – everybody just *has* to get married, even if takes several tries.
3. The average cell phone conversation is too loud, depressingly empty, and seriously annoying.
4. Pets - for me, dogs - are much better friends all around than humans.
The first three observations share something in common: too many people just can’t be alone for more than a few minutes without experiencing serious anxiety or even panic. A big part of it is probably what is discussed in this article - attachment styles developed in childhood. But I think that there are two other contributors as well: local culture and excessive fear of boredom combined with a learned inability to alleviate it through any other means than conversation, however unfulfilling.
My only plea for anybody who reads this is to take your cell phone conversation *outside*. The rest of us who can live without constantly yapping are trying to concentrate.
2
I highly recommend Bose noise-canceling headphones. Worth every penny, especially if you are so bothered by extraneous conversations around you.
Yet another argument for better parental leave. Babies are born completely dependent into a vast and confusing world, they don't know what is going on. They look to their parents for help. So hold your babies, nurse them, sleep with them, allow them to drool and upchuck on you; you're only doing as nature intended.
2
Also, a child or adult will form a different style of attachment with each significant caretaker/partner/friend in their life, e.g. mother or father.
No, it is their spawns fault. Leave the basement and go bother someone else. Even murderers don't get stuck with eighteen to twenty-six years. That is cruel and unusual punishment. Go get jobs. Don't worry about money or healthcare--Trump has you covered. Now, leave your parents in peace so they can FINALLY enjoy themselves without you parasites.
Ugh; what a bunch of psychobabble.
If 40-50% of children are "insecurely attached," then the concept (and the pejorative label) are both misguided. If almost half of the population displays a certain characteristic, then by definition it's not "in-" or "mis-" or "mal-" anything; rather, it's part of the "normal" spectrum of human behaviors.
Five years ago, I was the victim of eight years of severe harassment at my job at a SUNY college. The college admin refused to do anything about it. The harassment eventually got so severe that I developed C-PTSD, and required a medical leave. SUNY realized that it was now in legal trouble for allowing the harassment to cause my illness.
So they went into "legal defense mode," and subjected me to FIVE psychological evaluations in order to "prove" that I was "unfit to return to work." They hired a psychologist to give them an "Independent" Medical Exam report. (This lunacy happens in Worker's Comp claims too.)
What did their doctor report? That instead of C-PTSD, I had "an attachment disorder": Because my mother died when I was 9 years old, I was "unable to develop adult attachments." Because of this, I was viewing my "relationship" with my employer from an "immature perspective," as demonstrated by my "insecure need" to expect to be treated fairly by my employer/mother-figure.
Yes, that's the kind of Kafka-esque surreality that psychobabble like this can lead to! It's just meaningless claptrap.
If 40-50% of children are "insecurely attached," then the concept (and the pejorative label) are both misguided. If almost half of the population displays a certain characteristic, then by definition it's not "in-" or "mis-" or "mal-" anything; rather, it's part of the "normal" spectrum of human behaviors.
Five years ago, I was the victim of eight years of severe harassment at my job at a SUNY college. The college admin refused to do anything about it. The harassment eventually got so severe that I developed C-PTSD, and required a medical leave. SUNY realized that it was now in legal trouble for allowing the harassment to cause my illness.
So they went into "legal defense mode," and subjected me to FIVE psychological evaluations in order to "prove" that I was "unfit to return to work." They hired a psychologist to give them an "Independent" Medical Exam report. (This lunacy happens in Worker's Comp claims too.)
What did their doctor report? That instead of C-PTSD, I had "an attachment disorder": Because my mother died when I was 9 years old, I was "unable to develop adult attachments." Because of this, I was viewing my "relationship" with my employer from an "immature perspective," as demonstrated by my "insecure need" to expect to be treated fairly by my employer/mother-figure.
Yes, that's the kind of Kafka-esque surreality that psychobabble like this can lead to! It's just meaningless claptrap.
7
He who lives by the expert testimony of a psychologist may also die by the expert testimony of a psychologist.
It was you who opened the door to this kind of intrusive examination and speculation by claiming in a lawsuit that PTSD resulted from your job situation. Of course undercutting psychological countertheories were going to be launched back at you.
Are both the claimed PTSD and the claimed "inadequate attachment impairment" claptrap?
Is neither one claptrap?
It's in the eyes of the paid expert. And ultimately of the factfinder in the case.
Your lawyer should have warned you that you were opening yourself up for this.
It was you who opened the door to this kind of intrusive examination and speculation by claiming in a lawsuit that PTSD resulted from your job situation. Of course undercutting psychological countertheories were going to be launched back at you.
Are both the claimed PTSD and the claimed "inadequate attachment impairment" claptrap?
Is neither one claptrap?
It's in the eyes of the paid expert. And ultimately of the factfinder in the case.
Your lawyer should have warned you that you were opening yourself up for this.
1
The article fails to mention that babies need their mother most.
2
There is an expiry date on blaming your parents for steering you in the wrong direction; the moment you are old enough to take the wheel, responsibility lies with you.
- J. K. Rowling
- J. K. Rowling
4
Thank you so much for this brilliant insight on ATTACHMENT and life.
=====================================================
This reminds me of two new movies, LION and the EAGLE HUNTRESS. Both, based on real life, show the importance of bonds between parents and children. Here is the trailer to documentary, "The Eagle Huntress":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfi5JS6HTH0
(And I think one of the reasons attachment may be lacking in children is because of schooling. As kids go through school their interests may tend to pull them away from their parents interests. This is what happen in my life.)
=====================================================
This reminds me of two new movies, LION and the EAGLE HUNTRESS. Both, based on real life, show the importance of bonds between parents and children. Here is the trailer to documentary, "The Eagle Huntress":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfi5JS6HTH0
(And I think one of the reasons attachment may be lacking in children is because of schooling. As kids go through school their interests may tend to pull them away from their parents interests. This is what happen in my life.)
1
Did the author even mention smartphones? Seemed to promise parenting insight but mainly discussed adult attachment results. I.e. not process oriented.
No sweat. We won't have kids. Actually, that would solve a lot of the word's problems
1
Isn't a sociopath someone who has never been shown compassion and thus has no compassion?
Isn't attachment parenting the most obvious and human thing to do? Love your child. Comfort your child. Support your child. The only reason parents would do anything else is because their children are an inconvenience and because they themselves have sociopathic tendencies.
Isn't attachment parenting the most obvious and human thing to do? Love your child. Comfort your child. Support your child. The only reason parents would do anything else is because their children are an inconvenience and because they themselves have sociopathic tendencies.
3
The etiology of sociopathy is not that clear-cut. Many famous sociopaths had normal-seeming parents and normal-functioning siblings. Remember also that sociopathy exists on a spectrum. Most people who score above average on the sociopathy spectrum/scale are functioning in society.
But I will grant you that neglectful or abusive parenting certainly can't be a positive in the picture.
But I will grant you that neglectful or abusive parenting certainly can't be a positive in the picture.
2
Sounds like an appeal for love. By parents and other caregivers. Love being "unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another" (Merriam-Webster). The earlier the better. At which we all fail but some more than others.
2
Not sure why the Strange Test was not mentioned bc I'm sure there are many parents interested in a psychological test to see how attached their children are. Here is more about the test, and btw, it is named after a doctor whose last name was "Strange."
http://www.parentingscience.com/strange-situation.html
http://www.parentingscience.com/strange-situation.html
3
it's specious and fey to 'blame the parents'. it's the responsibility of each of us to use our little brains and assess and learn from situations to better ourselves; and not at the expense of others.
1
i do not agree or disagree with the author, however if our culture now celebrates individualism and self-reliance, it might be that our culture is simply at fault because self- reliance can get someone is a lot of trouble. there is ONE who is always there for every person on earth and that person i call God. without him i am nothing. for non believers, i do not have an answer and i am not judging them nor do i think they are less than me. i just know what works for me.
1
My parents abandoned me when I was a toddler. I was placed in the foster care system. To say that my “early experiences were suboptimal” is an understatement.
Dr. Steele goes on to state “Then you have to earn your security by later forming secure attachments that help you override your flawed internal working model.” If only it were that simple.
As a child I internalized the pain of adult abuse. Buried deep in my subconscious was the certainty that I must be a bad person since my parents didn’t want me.
As an adolescent I was the “bad” kid you didn’t want your children to be friends with. Through a couple of positive experiences I was able to build enough self-esteem to have a functioning life. But I was not happy.
In later years a life crisis prompted the emotional trauma of the past to overwhelm me. I started seeing a psychologist named Jean Jenson who wrote the book “Reclaiming your life” (the book is on Amazon)
To summarize, her theory is that to heal from childhood abuse one must emotionally go back in time and relive the fear, anxiety, and pain of the past to process it out of one’s system. Otherwise these unprocessed emotions will subconsciously drive your actions as an adult.
I was able to use her theory and guidance to heal myself. But it’s been an extremely difficult process that has taken decades and a lot of strong will.
I hope that sharing my story on the NYT Opinion page may give others insight into what it takes to break cycles of abuse.
Dr. Steele goes on to state “Then you have to earn your security by later forming secure attachments that help you override your flawed internal working model.” If only it were that simple.
As a child I internalized the pain of adult abuse. Buried deep in my subconscious was the certainty that I must be a bad person since my parents didn’t want me.
As an adolescent I was the “bad” kid you didn’t want your children to be friends with. Through a couple of positive experiences I was able to build enough self-esteem to have a functioning life. But I was not happy.
In later years a life crisis prompted the emotional trauma of the past to overwhelm me. I started seeing a psychologist named Jean Jenson who wrote the book “Reclaiming your life” (the book is on Amazon)
To summarize, her theory is that to heal from childhood abuse one must emotionally go back in time and relive the fear, anxiety, and pain of the past to process it out of one’s system. Otherwise these unprocessed emotions will subconsciously drive your actions as an adult.
I was able to use her theory and guidance to heal myself. But it’s been an extremely difficult process that has taken decades and a lot of strong will.
I hope that sharing my story on the NYT Opinion page may give others insight into what it takes to break cycles of abuse.
15
Thank you very much for telling your story.
My early abandonment, by my alcoholic father only, was less extreme than yours, but still there was pain and there are scars.
Parents are the most powerful people in the world. Their actions and omissions have a staggering effect on the new humans they create.
Think hard before you procreate. Am I up to this? How much am I willing to give up for it? Am I grown-up enough myself to help someone else to grow?
Every baby deserves to be a planned, eagerly anticipated, and loved baby.
My early abandonment, by my alcoholic father only, was less extreme than yours, but still there was pain and there are scars.
Parents are the most powerful people in the world. Their actions and omissions have a staggering effect on the new humans they create.
Think hard before you procreate. Am I up to this? How much am I willing to give up for it? Am I grown-up enough myself to help someone else to grow?
Every baby deserves to be a planned, eagerly anticipated, and loved baby.
3
Insecure avoidant here. I had a dominant and over-protective but insecure mother who lacked understanding of the social situation I lived in as a child.
3
Does any of this matter if my smartphone is turned off? I just want to be absolutely sure on that point before I turn mine on. Otherwise it makes perfect sense.
1
In summer 1970's I took the bus across town with my older brother [two transfers] an hour commute- we went to the new shopping mall- watched a movie [Bugsy Malone] ate at McDonald's- rode the bus home and by 5 PM we were telling our parents about the exciting day we had! I was 7 and my older brother was 10!
4
Brings back great memories. Now that first experience of exciting freedom is likely to happen around 16...
When I think of attachment parenting, I think of entire families sleeping together in one bed till their kids hit puberty. I think of mothers breast feeding 5 year olds. Being present and supportive is baked into the definition of what a parent is. Not sure why this is news. The headline- "Parents who parent turn out better kids".
3
Recent research shows a strong genetic component http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.12171/full . This does not mean parenting is not important, but I wouldn't be too quick to blame parents.
2
I find attachment parenting the most loathsome of current parenting trends. Seriously, I have not, nor do I have any interest in studying human psychologist, but I am a parent to two very well attached to me and my husband, competent and happy children age 2 and 4. I'm also pregnant with my third child. AP (attachment parenting), as it's known in my circle of middle and upper middle class friends, is seen as the way to do things (by some); nurse on demand, wear your baby, strollers are wrong, co-sleep, etc. The tenets of the principle are far reaching into a mothers life and as far as I can tell make women feel like inferior care providers when she cannot live up to the ideal. It's completely worthless in my opinion. I have literally witnessed a good friend wither away while trying to maintain the standards as set out in attachment parenting. When she complains about not getting any sleep, nursing aversions because she is tandem nursing a three year old and a new baby, or any of the other number of things which come up while you're trying to adhere to the principles I actually want to tell her what I really think: "You are damaging yourself, your relationship with your partner and your children by doing this." Ladies, be the mother you want to be! Do it confidently and put yourself and your mental well being slightly ahead of your children's. Everyone will be happier and healthy.
247
Agreed. The self-martyrdom lifestyle of "attachment parenting" is so far afield of the attachment theories discussed in this article. Be there for your children. Love them. Snuggle them. Nurture them. Give them physical (tactile) and emotional comfort. Tell them you love them. Show them that they give you joy. And, voila: attached children. And, you can do it all without co-sleeping, tandem nursing preschoolers, or forgoing strollers. (And, you can do it as a working parent, too).
If you are blessed to do it long enough, motherhood will eventually throw some real challenges at you. Why go out of your way to invent unnecessary challenges from day one?
If you are blessed to do it long enough, motherhood will eventually throw some real challenges at you. Why go out of your way to invent unnecessary challenges from day one?
7
You are lucky to feel proud and secure in your own relationships! These mothers you see withering may be struggling with attachment issues of their own which lead them to difficulty in figuring out boundaries and expectations that are practical and manageable. They may seem insufferably proud of themselves and judgmental of you, but as you say they are worn out with their burdens and they could probably use your compassion.
2
"Attachment parenting" is not the same as attachment theory, which is being discussed in this article. True attachment-based interventions help parents feel more confident in their capacity to read and respond to their child's cues and reduce guilt when there are those inevitable times of disconnect and differing needs and agendas. No pediatrician, attachment researcher or mental health professional would think it was helpful for a mother to feel as overwhelmed and exhausted as it appears your friend feels. Any one scripted way of being as a parent is antithetical to parenting with an understanding of attachment theory, which essentially notes that children develop security when, on balance, they know their parent(s) are willing and able to soothe their distress/fears and to enjoy the child's budding autonomy.
6
Before my son was born almost 14 yrs ago, I was lucky enough to be given Dr Sears' The Baby Book. It was a wonderful guide for a first time mom who didn't have the best childhood. Everything Dr Sears said made sense, not only logically but in line with my mothering instincts. Of course I'm going to pick up and hold my baby when he cries! Of course I'm going to nurse on demand, not on some weird preset schedule. And I've never believed in the concept of "spoiling" a baby by loving and paying attention to him or her when needed. I only hope more people recognize how important those early years are, and we as a society make it easier for parents to attend to their most important "job" without fearing loss of a job.
156
The relationship survey is useless if one is not currently in a romantic relationship. Even though it asks up front what the participant's relationship status is, almost all of the questions ask about one's relationship with one's partner.
5
Well, sure. Just answer according to your own history; in other words, answer the questions that seemingly assume you are currently in a relationship according to how you have generally behaved or felt in past relationships. I don't think that renders the survey useless, though perhaps the wording could be better.
2
I would suggest that any romantic relationship security is likely impossible in the absence of a more general sense of security in human interaction. Any kind of mutually giving relationship requires both protagonists to make vulnerable and available core pieces of themselves. Insecure people cannot easily do this.
Looking back on my youth, I now understand that I was far too ego-needy to commit myself fully to another human being. Put more bluntly, I might refer to my youthful self as a certain nether body part of the GI tract. George Bernard Shaw had it right about the sad irony of youth being wasted on the young, but mercifully not all young.
Thank God for the aging process; it sands down the self-inflicted thorns.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Looking back on my youth, I now understand that I was far too ego-needy to commit myself fully to another human being. Put more bluntly, I might refer to my youthful self as a certain nether body part of the GI tract. George Bernard Shaw had it right about the sad irony of youth being wasted on the young, but mercifully not all young.
Thank God for the aging process; it sands down the self-inflicted thorns.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
“if free flow of communication is impaired, the relationship is, too.”
As it is in life, so it is in the body politic.
Trumps unwillingness to disclose his tax returns impairs the relationship between the citizenry and the presidency.
As it is in life, so it is in the body politic.
Trumps unwillingness to disclose his tax returns impairs the relationship between the citizenry and the presidency.
3
An excellent and well-balanced description of attachment styles from leading researchers who have been doing this work in earnest, some for 30 years. Appreciate the fact that psychodynamic research continues to offer relevant perspectives for use in our everyday lives.
3
The most important task in human existence is often times left to the most incompetent. No doubt that most people love their children with all their heart. No doubt that many of those same people aren't as qualified to raise self sufficient, productive, and kind human beings as they think they are. Unless and until we are willing to speak the truth about the horror that many children live daily just to survive, we will never change the course of future relationships.
Two things can be simultaneously true; 1. Parent did their best. 2. Their best was not that good.
Two things can be simultaneously true; 1. Parent did their best. 2. Their best was not that good.
11
What box do you fit into?
Life changes a person drastically by their experiences.
One may start out as one type and easily change into another after a negative OR positive experience.
Also I feel we may have more than one of these responses instilled within us. Especially children of nasty divorces or one abusive parent or relative. Yet a supportive, loving grandparent (or other relative) may change up things too. Too many variables. Too few pigeon holes here.
Life changes a person drastically by their experiences.
One may start out as one type and easily change into another after a negative OR positive experience.
Also I feel we may have more than one of these responses instilled within us. Especially children of nasty divorces or one abusive parent or relative. Yet a supportive, loving grandparent (or other relative) may change up things too. Too many variables. Too few pigeon holes here.
7
Mountains of research over many decades demonstrate beyond debate but there is a critical human period developing trust, just as there is a critical human for developing developing language, for example.
1
When I was a baby I was often given to my older sister - not even two years older - to be watched as a kind of living-doll. Adults were not far away but it was probably stressful nonetheless. Don't do this. I distinctly remember being three and feeling nervous about this as well. As an adult I've often seen people do this and think it's very cute. But they're only thinking about how the older child is experiencing the situation, not the terrible experience of the younger sibling.
7
No, it is not your parents' fault, and attachment theory has not been "scientifically validated," it has been comprehensively debunked by studies of twins who were separated at birth. Read Judith Rich Harris's "The Nurture Assumption," and stop spreading junk science in the pages of the New York Times. This piece is embarrassing trash and should never have been published.
Harris showed that what affects people's character and happiness, in the long run, is not how their parents treated them, but the larger social environment -- peers, culture, siblings, etc. Parents have little to no effect, through direct interaction, on the child's eventual adult personality. This goes against the beliefs of the semi-educated middle classes and on the convictions of the ignorant author of this ridiculous article, but so do debunkings of astrology go against the firm convictions of believers.
Harris showed that what affects people's character and happiness, in the long run, is not how their parents treated them, but the larger social environment -- peers, culture, siblings, etc. Parents have little to no effect, through direct interaction, on the child's eventual adult personality. This goes against the beliefs of the semi-educated middle classes and on the convictions of the ignorant author of this ridiculous article, but so do debunkings of astrology go against the firm convictions of believers.
25
I am a product of the soothe yourself generation. I think I have all the problematic attachment styles. Very painful and took years to figure it out. Yep I am strong and independent. And single. Not sure if the attachment issues can be fixed in one's 60s. But I have a good and interesting life nonetheless.
25
Let's say all of this is true. Knowing the reasons why we do the things we do isn't enough to change our most destructive habits. Insight doesn't always create action. It might even, ironically, create inertia and pointless ruminations.
The past is only mildly useful. Cognitive psychology can help us more with the future.
The past is only mildly useful. Cognitive psychology can help us more with the future.
6
The importance of understanding attachment issues cannot be overstated. This should be taught to all new parents as often as child birthing, breast feeding, infant/child development. Pediatric Departments, clinics, private practices should offer classes. Understanding the importance of this may mean, or not, a happy life for your child. As my mother used to say. "No one taught me how to be a parent so I did the best I could." What she didn't learn was the importance of consistent attachment. But after a lot of therapy, I forgive her.
23
I wonder if breast-feeding is one of the important ways of establishing a secure attachment? My first son, born in '68, benefited from the "natural" movement of that period. I suspect that in 1940, when I was born, mothers were rejecting the old-fashioned ways of feeding babies and boiled bottles and mixed "formula" because it was modern.... and created a generation of insecure kids.
7
Overall, the studies on that question do not correlate breast versus bottlefeeding with quality of attachment. Many people shared your concern for a long time.
However, the research does support the nutritional and developmental superiority of breast milk over formula.
On an anecdotal level, I can share that two of my (widely spaced) children were breast-fed (one for nine months, and the other for three years), while my middle child was breast-fed for only a very short time (medical and life complications during that timeframe). I did not and do not sense that bottlefeeding had a negative effect on my connection to my middle child (although I preferred breast-feeding and was sad that it ended so early in that instance).
However, the research does support the nutritional and developmental superiority of breast milk over formula.
On an anecdotal level, I can share that two of my (widely spaced) children were breast-fed (one for nine months, and the other for three years), while my middle child was breast-fed for only a very short time (medical and life complications during that timeframe). I did not and do not sense that bottlefeeding had a negative effect on my connection to my middle child (although I preferred breast-feeding and was sad that it ended so early in that instance).
3
I mostly grew up with my nanny as my mom was busy all the time (my dad died when i was 2). I remember nights when I read myself bedtime story. How that impact me as an adult? I had two advanced degrees, working for a reputable tech company and traveled around the world before I tuned 30. And I am not from the U.S.
Did I feel unsecured? Yes, when I in my teens and early 20s. But it is easy to get over once you can gain confidence from somewhere else - career, reputation, wealth. And the best part, I learned not to be attached to anyone.
Did I feel unsecured? Yes, when I in my teens and early 20s. But it is easy to get over once you can gain confidence from somewhere else - career, reputation, wealth. And the best part, I learned not to be attached to anyone.
14
I think you should give relationships another shot. Might come in handy some day.
This is an interesting response. The responder is correct. Being insecure does not necessarily mean that one will be unsuccessful or unhappy. It just means that you won’t be able to use your social network to help you. There certainly are many people who are wonderfully self-sufficient and able to do great things on their own. On the other hand, there are many people that “need a village” to succeed. It’s not an either-or situation.
I have had similar success in life. I have been fortunate enough to have two enduring marriages of over 25 years. The first wife died. The second wife is still my great helpmate. I have friends who are wildly successful who are unmarried.
I do not know the statistics as to whether people who have secure attachments on the average are more successful than those who do not. I don’t think it matters much to the individual. We certainly know that both types of individuals can be successful and that people who have secure attachments can fail.
I have had similar success in life. I have been fortunate enough to have two enduring marriages of over 25 years. The first wife died. The second wife is still my great helpmate. I have friends who are wildly successful who are unmarried.
I do not know the statistics as to whether people who have secure attachments on the average are more successful than those who do not. I don’t think it matters much to the individual. We certainly know that both types of individuals can be successful and that people who have secure attachments can fail.
Let's hope no public monies are spent on such mental masturbation. Silly questionnaires and hand-wrung consultations produce no enduring truths or remedies any more than a "love survey" does in the various vacuous publications that cater to the insecure, the insipid and the insulated on campuses.
9
I think part of the thesis is preposterous. If people suffer in isolation it is only because they were trained so. One can live perfectly fine alone, given adequate material resources. Heck, that is the very goal of some. It's amazing to me that such one-sided statement can be made today, considering all of the strife out there. I suppose there are two ends of this spectrum --the author's and Sartre who said "Hell is other people."
14
You state two extremes as the only possibilities. This is simplistic.
2
You make a good point. Faulty early attachment may or may not in individual cases be connected to introversion and/or a tendency to higher than average levels of social avoidance. Those who are introverted tend not to express or experience distress as aresult of their orientation . Introversion is a trait, not a disorder or maladjustment.
1
Now that we have identified the concern, where do we go to find solutions or corrective behaviors on both sides of the attachment dynamic? As a parent of adult children can one in effect "undo" the "style" of parenting, as an adult child can one "undo" the "style" of developing? I put "undo" in quotes because it stands for something complex that must of course exist upon a gradient of possibilities.
"where do we go to find solutions or corrective behaviors.....?
Cognitive psychology offers this. Explore it.
Cognitive psychology offers this. Explore it.
1
Getting a divorce doesn't necessarily mean you will raise insecure children. Being present as a parent does not necessarily mean you have to remain married, and getting divorced was actually one of the best things my parents did for my sister and I as children. Watching our parents bicker and fight over everything all the time would probably have been bad modeling for our future relationships. Instead they showed us it was possible to love and be loved post divorce, and we could count on both our parents in different ways. I am NOT saying that divorce is an ideal situation, but just pointing out that it may be preferable to an unhappy married life in terms of raising happy, secure children who can go on to be in healthy and long lasting relationships. Both my sister and I remain happily married.
46
Couldn't agree more. There is nothing worse than raising children in an emotional war zone. My ex and I are happily re-partnered with others and therefore providing TWO models of healthy relationships to our children.
2
I can see how this may be true in some cases. The problem is that the data show that children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced.
Getting a divorce does necessarily that both parents chose poorly in a mate and then compounded that bad choice by having children together (because children always reduce stress in a relationship?).
There is no way that does not affect the children.
There is no way that does not affect the children.
1
The author writes that I nsecurity is result of parental inattention or too much attention ("smothering.") Are children's anxieties being measured or scientists' own? This seems like more navel gazing when so many children are malnourished, beaten and psychologically abused. Rather than deal with that we are encouraged to worry if we left our babies with babysitters too soon.
3
@Stourley in White Plains - I think you miss the point. The article is not about the amount of time spent together, but rather about the quality of the parent-child relationship. An emotionally distant parent can spend every waking hour in the physical presence of a child, but be emotionally unavailable to that child in ways that the child feels abandoned and emotional growth is affected. Because parental relationships are primary relationships, distortions in those in either direction (overbearing or distant) can have a negative impact on the child's emotional development regardless of the amount of time spent in the same room.
64
I took the Adult Attachment Interview and discovered I am a "Winter."
I am wondering how to reconcile the author's assertion that attachment theory is "scientifically validated" with what I took to be a rather massive body of evidence, compiled over decades, which says that parenting styles have very little impact on how children turn out, at least in regard to personality traits such as intelligence and temperament. This evidence is well summarized in "The Nurture Assumption," by Judith Rich Harris, but many others have written about it as well.
The claim is that there is very little you can do as a parent to influence whether your child turns out to be, lets say, an introvert or an extrovert. That will be about 50 percent determined by the child's genes, and 50 percent by environmental influences that are not well understood, but which -- very counter-intuitively! -- appear to have little or nothing to do with the child's family environment. For example, while it's not surprising that identical twins raised apart tend to nevertheless have similar personalities, you might expect that identical twins raised together with their biological parents would be even *more* similar. But as far as researchers can tell, they aren't, and that's a big problem for the idea that parental behavior directly influences children's outcomes.
This is far too complicated an issue to hash out in a comment of course; all I am trying to do here is make readers aware that the science behind attachment theory may not be as secure as the author would have you believe.
The claim is that there is very little you can do as a parent to influence whether your child turns out to be, lets say, an introvert or an extrovert. That will be about 50 percent determined by the child's genes, and 50 percent by environmental influences that are not well understood, but which -- very counter-intuitively! -- appear to have little or nothing to do with the child's family environment. For example, while it's not surprising that identical twins raised apart tend to nevertheless have similar personalities, you might expect that identical twins raised together with their biological parents would be even *more* similar. But as far as researchers can tell, they aren't, and that's a big problem for the idea that parental behavior directly influences children's outcomes.
This is far too complicated an issue to hash out in a comment of course; all I am trying to do here is make readers aware that the science behind attachment theory may not be as secure as the author would have you believe.
9
Spoken like a person who enjoyed a great childhood.
Let me explain it to you. When you're an unwilling participant in a poor quality childhood, nurture (or lack of) crowds out your natural temperament and personality and survival becomes the priority. You conform and become the person that people think you are even if it's against your nature. Later, if you can get enough distance from the mistreatment, your true self will begin to emerge and the person you were previously becomes unrecognizable. Unfortunately by that time it's often too late for many of life's opportunities.
Let me explain it to you. When you're an unwilling participant in a poor quality childhood, nurture (or lack of) crowds out your natural temperament and personality and survival becomes the priority. You conform and become the person that people think you are even if it's against your nature. Later, if you can get enough distance from the mistreatment, your true self will begin to emerge and the person you were previously becomes unrecognizable. Unfortunately by that time it's often too late for many of life's opportunities.
3
Very interesting article (and no, I'm not the Kenneth Levy who is cited). I’ve noticed four things about people and attachment over the last 30 years, some of them just over the last 10:
1. There’s no such thing as a female loner.
2. Having lived in the North and now the South, many more people up there can live without a relationship and do just fine. Not so much down here – everybody just *has* to get married, even if it takes several tries.
3. The average cell phone conversation is too loud, depressingly empty, and seriously annoying.
4. Pets - for me, dogs - are much better friends all around than humans.
The first three observations share something in common: too many people just can’t be alone for more than a few minutes without experiencing serious anxiety or even panic. A big part of it is probably what is discussed in this article - attachment styles developed in childhood. But I think that there are two other contributors as well: local culture and excessive fear of boredom combined with a learned inability to alleviate it through any other means than conversation, however unfulfilling.
My only plea for anybody who reads this comment is to take your cell phone conversation *outside*. The rest of us who can live without constantly yapping are trying to concentrate.
1. There’s no such thing as a female loner.
2. Having lived in the North and now the South, many more people up there can live without a relationship and do just fine. Not so much down here – everybody just *has* to get married, even if it takes several tries.
3. The average cell phone conversation is too loud, depressingly empty, and seriously annoying.
4. Pets - for me, dogs - are much better friends all around than humans.
The first three observations share something in common: too many people just can’t be alone for more than a few minutes without experiencing serious anxiety or even panic. A big part of it is probably what is discussed in this article - attachment styles developed in childhood. But I think that there are two other contributors as well: local culture and excessive fear of boredom combined with a learned inability to alleviate it through any other means than conversation, however unfulfilling.
My only plea for anybody who reads this comment is to take your cell phone conversation *outside*. The rest of us who can live without constantly yapping are trying to concentrate.
4
Your No. 1 is wrong.
6
My PhD is in Social Psychology, 1973, and covered a lot of ground, including Freudian, or psychoanalytic, interpretations of human motivation
Dr Freud is in disfavor these days, yet the issues here sound very Freudian and the click through to Bowlby, who was a giant in his very original and important research, has him drawing on psychoanalytic theory
So, what do I know, a half century later, of academic new thinking, and a personal journey likewise, including much psychoanalytic-guided introspection
(1) As a social science researcher, I think these formulations are heavily nuclear family, and not all humankind is nuclear; 'neo-local' - people get a new house, away from elders, is relatively new, and our research is likely context-bound
(2) I am certain, the children vary, from the factory, in capacity to relate, and so broken connections, come from kids as well as from adults, imho, much personality is hard-wired, although that also is a variable, some folks are more hard-wired at birth, some less so, this is called behavioral genetics, and is adverse to humanism and optimism, and I am a churl
(3) we can measure these things carefully in neuroscience Bowlby could not and Sigmund certainly, although he started life dissecting eel nervous systems, but anatomy is not functionality, wires are not software
(4) We know from ethology, Bowlby cites to that, that non-human social animals have wide variety, in social bond formation, and we can tinker with that, experimentally,...
Dr Freud is in disfavor these days, yet the issues here sound very Freudian and the click through to Bowlby, who was a giant in his very original and important research, has him drawing on psychoanalytic theory
So, what do I know, a half century later, of academic new thinking, and a personal journey likewise, including much psychoanalytic-guided introspection
(1) As a social science researcher, I think these formulations are heavily nuclear family, and not all humankind is nuclear; 'neo-local' - people get a new house, away from elders, is relatively new, and our research is likely context-bound
(2) I am certain, the children vary, from the factory, in capacity to relate, and so broken connections, come from kids as well as from adults, imho, much personality is hard-wired, although that also is a variable, some folks are more hard-wired at birth, some less so, this is called behavioral genetics, and is adverse to humanism and optimism, and I am a churl
(3) we can measure these things carefully in neuroscience Bowlby could not and Sigmund certainly, although he started life dissecting eel nervous systems, but anatomy is not functionality, wires are not software
(4) We know from ethology, Bowlby cites to that, that non-human social animals have wide variety, in social bond formation, and we can tinker with that, experimentally,...
7
This is an interesting article. I believe though our early attachment experience is not necessarily our destiny as mature adults even without professional assistance. I am much more secure in my romantic relationship with my husband after 33 years of marriage than I was early in our marriage and with romantic partners before my husband. We learn to be secure with another through love, loyalty and self-awareness that comes with maturity. That said, those of us who have practiced family law are very aware of attachment disorders seen in children abandoned and abused at a young age.
2
While this is an interesting article its brevity reduces a complex subject, attachment, to only a few variables and sees it through the eyes of one theory. To presume as one reader does that parenting classes, groups, theories about child rearing or book were widely available whenever "you" were a child is putting the world of today on yesterday. It just wasn't like that in the USA. Perhaps your mother or father were unskilled parents but then there is no perfection in parenting. Additionally fathers have an influence and later the individuals one comes in contact. There is also the issue that sometimes children are difficult and/or life has become impossible for parents and they fail, not out of a lack of love but a lack of support all parents need. Adult children can also become estranged from parents not because there parents failed but because of a controlling, abusive spouse or engagement with cults. Life also changes and the catastrophe of death or illness in a family impacts what is happening in the child's life. And how does this work out in other cultures; you can't call it psychological truth if it doesn't apply more widely than parts of the Western world. Interesting and for some handy, helpful maybe but not definitive. Not everyone should be a parent, yes. Attachment theory does help us understand some factors of what a baby needs but raising a child is not like following a formula. You have to adapt and sometimes improvise knowing you will not be perfect.
8
While it is important that our culture is beginning to detect the evolutionary significance of our connection to our families, it is painful to have that significant connection gutted with a title like "Yes, It's Your Parents' Fault." The last thing we need is further justification to either blame our parents or to blame ourselves for our own failures as parents. The tough thing about an article and "science" like this attributing cause and effect much too simplistically is that it continues this blame culture. Bowen Family Systems Theory has been around as long as Attachment Theory, and it takes a more comprehensive look at the family. Whereas an important criticism of Bowlby's work was that it put too much emphasis on the mother, Bowen wondered about "the large number of normal people who, as far as could be determined, had been exposed to more maternal deprivation than those who were sick.” In other words, saying mom did a bad job just doesn't explain it for far too many people who experienced poor parenting and who did not become mentally ill. I would be interested in an article where Ms. Murphy considers the criticisms of attachment theory as well as alternative views. There is much more to the story than what attachment theory provides.
8
I'm so glad knowledge of attachment is getting into the mainstream. I first heard the word when I sought help in college for debilitating anxiety that had plagued me as long as I could remember. In childhood, I had an unholy terror of being "left behind" and would panic if my mother was late to pick me up from school, or when she left me alone in the car to go shopping. My college counselor suggested that insecure attachment in infancy might account for some of these unaccountable emotional overreactions: trauma of being left alone, with no way to help myself, when I was too young to consciously remember, but plenty old enough to form deep emotional memories. Childrearing in the 1960s, when I was born, included putting newborns to sleep alone and ignoring them when they cried. "You'll spoil her!" my mother chided me once when, as a babysitter, I went to comfort a crying infant. I've seen how pernicious and unwitting was the abandonment of infants was in my parents' generation. I've watched friends and younger relatives practice kinder, gentler, more natural methods with their infants. I believe we are products of evolution. Think "Paleo Diet", re: infant care. Do you think cave people left their babies to cry in another cave during the night? Do modern tribal peoples treat their infants that way? No way! They'd consider it cruel and dangerous. So should we.
12
Attachment theory and theorists uniformly neglect
issues related to poverty in thier assumptions
and discussions. It is assumed we can all afford
to make the changes of availability to the needs of
our children and it is just a matter of education
and will. If only this were true. What is missing
in this intellectua and psychologicall approach, so typical of many articles in this paper, is a more holistic approach to problems and solutions related to the needs of young children. What is even more disturbing are the superior comments
of obviously middle and upper class respondents who berate
others for having children.
issues related to poverty in thier assumptions
and discussions. It is assumed we can all afford
to make the changes of availability to the needs of
our children and it is just a matter of education
and will. If only this were true. What is missing
in this intellectua and psychologicall approach, so typical of many articles in this paper, is a more holistic approach to problems and solutions related to the needs of young children. What is even more disturbing are the superior comments
of obviously middle and upper class respondents who berate
others for having children.
4
Interesting. I practiced attachment parenting when my children were babies/toddlers. Whenever I would leave, my children never cried or pleaded with me to stay. They were always content and calm. The first day I dropped my eldest off at preschool, I expected him to cling to me, but instead he ran off in excitement and called out, "Bye mommy!"
When I would leave the house, they never cried. Upon returning, they always seemed happy to see me. I can't figure out from this article if I did the parenting thing right or wrong!
They are 7 and 10 now and still like to sleep with me a few times a week to snuggle and be close. The family bed is part of our lives and we have always met their needs in this regard. I was fortunate to stay home with my children prior to school, so perhaps my always being present gave them a sense of calm and ease when I left. I do recall always making sure to tell them goodbye, showing them lots of affection prior to leaving, and reassuring them I would be back. I'd like to think that keeping them informed of my departure, reassuring them of my return, and being a constant presence in their lives has left them feeling emotionally grounded, secure, and above all, loved.
When I would leave the house, they never cried. Upon returning, they always seemed happy to see me. I can't figure out from this article if I did the parenting thing right or wrong!
They are 7 and 10 now and still like to sleep with me a few times a week to snuggle and be close. The family bed is part of our lives and we have always met their needs in this regard. I was fortunate to stay home with my children prior to school, so perhaps my always being present gave them a sense of calm and ease when I left. I do recall always making sure to tell them goodbye, showing them lots of affection prior to leaving, and reassuring them I would be back. I'd like to think that keeping them informed of my departure, reassuring them of my return, and being a constant presence in their lives has left them feeling emotionally grounded, secure, and above all, loved.
28
if free flow of communication is impaired, the relationship is, too.”
This is your pearl of wisdom?
"Human's are social animals" Aristotle said, 2500 year ago; 'those whose best lives are lived in isolation are either gods or mentally ill."
Communication itself presumes language--a cultural reality-- presuming a more or less shared world view. Without them humanity is defined by mere DNA
Individuals (indivisibles) are mere elements of greater social wholes (greater indivisibles) families, neighborhoods, polities of all levels and cultures.
In all cases wholes are greater than sums of their parts. American "individualism" is a delusion--a scam for undermining taxation for public works and community infrastructure.
From the Greeks and Romans on, European polities--marvels of civil service and engineering--were built to last.
The USA seems to be coming apart.
This is your pearl of wisdom?
"Human's are social animals" Aristotle said, 2500 year ago; 'those whose best lives are lived in isolation are either gods or mentally ill."
Communication itself presumes language--a cultural reality-- presuming a more or less shared world view. Without them humanity is defined by mere DNA
Individuals (indivisibles) are mere elements of greater social wholes (greater indivisibles) families, neighborhoods, polities of all levels and cultures.
In all cases wholes are greater than sums of their parts. American "individualism" is a delusion--a scam for undermining taxation for public works and community infrastructure.
From the Greeks and Romans on, European polities--marvels of civil service and engineering--were built to last.
The USA seems to be coming apart.
8
My doctorate in psychology tells me that this article lacks the evidence for its broadest claims of massive insecurity of "40-50" % insecurity among infants. It is an axiom of science that strong claims require strong evidence and a fleeting reference to a "meta -analysis" of previous work, a 50 cent word for a review, does not meet that test. I know in the era of Trump, wild claims are ok and evidence is not supposed to matter, but I expected this paper to adhere to better standards.
155
Maybe I'm missing something, but while this is a nice overview of attachment theory, it's been around -- and apparently blaming parents for the outcomes of their offspring -- for a very long time. Yes, parental behavior and the early parent-child relationship does affect kids' outcomess. Nothing new or earth-shattering there. But contemporary theories and research tell us those outcones are caused by a multitude of factors, and that the parent-child relationship is also powerfully affected by characteristics of the child and by the "fit" or "match" between characteristics of parent and child. That's why "attachment" between the same parent and different offspring can be completely dufferent. Blaming parents for the outcomes of their kids -- as inferred by the headline on this article -- doesn't reflect the reality and represents a very dated, incomplete understanding of the reality and current research.
34
Really? You would invalidate the success of families where the parents are perceptive, informed, intelligent, generous, secure, honest and well adjusted?
It is about a good match? No, it is not, it's about responsible parenting.
It is about a good match? No, it is not, it's about responsible parenting.
The Iconiclast--are you under the impression that intelligent, well adjusted parents never have children with problems? How old are your kids?
Interesting. My mother and I were so inherently different that it was almost impossible for her to connect. She did a great job of preparing me with practical skills but emotionally every reaction was at a far end of the spectrum (humor, aesthetic tastes, even food). Equivalent to being color blind. I am not sure all of the skills can be "trained" to a high enough percent of responses for a child to see a honest connection. At least my mother would not have been a Trump voter; she switched from Republican to Democratic with Nixon so perhaps there is some hope.
Relevance of attachment theory of psychoanalyst John Bowlby for American life?
I could be described according to this theory as quite insecurely attached (a combination of insecure anxious, avoidant and disorganized). But my position is not entirely negative. Attachment theory makes much sense so long as we recognize that attachment to pretty much anything can go only so far because human society of course is dynamic, dependent on change, dependent on human differences, that in fact the heights of human genius depend on a person becoming quite detached from the thinking of other members of society.
The concept of attachment theory while on one hand becoming a valid defense of creating secure adults can easily become a defense for groupthink of every type whether that means religious uniformity, national uniformity or even totalitarian politics. The real problem is how to detach a person from other people, create an individual without making the person sick, insecure, avoidant, anxious, disorganized to point of possibly schizophrenic mind.
An insight much more valid for American life than any psychological theory is how advanced our physical medicine is, how advanced we are in treating the human body, while our capacity for psychology, literature, subtlety of mind and health of such is on a quite primitive level. You can give a politician a heart transplant but it is next to impossible to have a subtle, honest, direct and intelligent conversation on television.
I could be described according to this theory as quite insecurely attached (a combination of insecure anxious, avoidant and disorganized). But my position is not entirely negative. Attachment theory makes much sense so long as we recognize that attachment to pretty much anything can go only so far because human society of course is dynamic, dependent on change, dependent on human differences, that in fact the heights of human genius depend on a person becoming quite detached from the thinking of other members of society.
The concept of attachment theory while on one hand becoming a valid defense of creating secure adults can easily become a defense for groupthink of every type whether that means religious uniformity, national uniformity or even totalitarian politics. The real problem is how to detach a person from other people, create an individual without making the person sick, insecure, avoidant, anxious, disorganized to point of possibly schizophrenic mind.
An insight much more valid for American life than any psychological theory is how advanced our physical medicine is, how advanced we are in treating the human body, while our capacity for psychology, literature, subtlety of mind and health of such is on a quite primitive level. You can give a politician a heart transplant but it is next to impossible to have a subtle, honest, direct and intelligent conversation on television.
7
You are conflating too many very different concepts and phenomena to list here. But I think that you have developed a narrative that Nourishes and sustains you despite any injuries resulting from what you describe as your "insecure attachment," and that in itself is highly adaptive.
1
Yet another unnatural affect of hyperdependence on technology has emerged to harm our children and society...how many of these helicopter parents raise helicopter children who get into excessive eating at an early age to compensate for their anxiety that Mommy is still at work? Too many, as even the most superficial observation may tell us. And how many other disorders, of a more subtle but equally pernicious nature, will emerge when these kids eventually mature? Not to mention their inability to parent without helicoptering?
4
I am well into my 50's and recently took an intro to psychology course and was surprised to read in the required and well regarded textbook that data shows fairly conclusively that parents have much less effect on kids than previously believed. Identical twins raised in very different environments wind up being very similar in terms of temperament and relationship style. I'm wondering how these findings square with attachment theory. Any ideas?
38
Most kids get a "good enough" (to paraphrase Bruno Bettelheim) parenting start to then follow (largely) their genetic map.
1
The highest rate of divorce has a demonstrably positive correlation to those who were placed in childcare as children: the lower classes.
Perhaps more Americans will consider the virtues of keeping and caring for their children in their homes rather than adopt the utilitarian view that we are all laborers and our children need to be place in institutional settings while we earn a wage.
It will put a dent on our household earnings and output, something that seems to be a major obsession of Progressions.
Perhaps more Americans will consider the virtues of keeping and caring for their children in their homes rather than adopt the utilitarian view that we are all laborers and our children need to be place in institutional settings while we earn a wage.
It will put a dent on our household earnings and output, something that seems to be a major obsession of Progressions.
15
If only your advice and the current economic landscape for the middle class lined up.
1
The problem with the "solution" you propose here is that the burden of home care for children has always fallen on the woman in our culture, and it will continue to do so until we do the work to dismantle assumptions about caregiving and back that work up with our wallets.
We need choices regarding how we care for our children. Shoving women back into the home (which is what "home caregiving" means until we do that cultural work) is not the answer.
We need choices regarding how we care for our children. Shoving women back into the home (which is what "home caregiving" means until we do that cultural work) is not the answer.
3
Theories that explain human behavior as determined by environmental or biological mechanisms inevitably fail to address the reality that both mechanisms play a role in personality development. It is not a question of nature vs. nurture, but how much is nature and how much is nurture. This is a question that we lack the tools to answer. Regarding attachment, there is nothing that precludes the possibility that internal attachment models (object relations, in psychoanalytic theory) are at least partially influenced by biological factors. Given that most scientists agree that at least 50% of personality is genetically based, it seems likely that this is the case. It is also likely, in my view, that the extent of influence experience has varies from one individual to the next -- i.e., there may be a variance in susceptibility. This viewpoint is drawn from the well known fact that some individuals are of more stalwart, or stoic natures, who seem impervious to the effects of the environment whereas others are more reactive. Research on psychological trauma also finds that some individuals are more prone to experience long term psychological effects of trauma than others.
Neat simplistic views of human behavior will also make good headlines but fail to capture the complexity of human life. The reality is that we can't know why we are the way we are is likely to be unpopular, except when portrayed in great literature, where the aim is more inspiration than explanation.
Neat simplistic views of human behavior will also make good headlines but fail to capture the complexity of human life. The reality is that we can't know why we are the way we are is likely to be unpopular, except when portrayed in great literature, where the aim is more inspiration than explanation.
69
Murphy notes that the "accuracy [of attachment questionnaires] depends on the skill and training of the interviewer."
True! Our older daughter had a psychotic break in her early teens. We did our level best to help her through it, though because this was c. 1989 we were struggling in the dark. She's now in her 40s.
She recently informed me that she has a wonderful new therapist who explained that her only problem has ever been... me. You see, I have this terrible habit of inserting my thoughts into her brain. I don't need to utter a word or even be present to perform this sleight of mind! (Google "thought insertion.")
This therapist diagnosed me sight-unseen as a "co-dependent mother," which appears to be this generation's term for the "schizophrenogenic mother."
I get that it can be fun to externalize all one's problems. Roll them up into a ball, blame Mom, and walk away whistling. Sadly, that can leave patients prey to therapists who flunked Abnormal Psych in grad school!
True! Our older daughter had a psychotic break in her early teens. We did our level best to help her through it, though because this was c. 1989 we were struggling in the dark. She's now in her 40s.
She recently informed me that she has a wonderful new therapist who explained that her only problem has ever been... me. You see, I have this terrible habit of inserting my thoughts into her brain. I don't need to utter a word or even be present to perform this sleight of mind! (Google "thought insertion.")
This therapist diagnosed me sight-unseen as a "co-dependent mother," which appears to be this generation's term for the "schizophrenogenic mother."
I get that it can be fun to externalize all one's problems. Roll them up into a ball, blame Mom, and walk away whistling. Sadly, that can leave patients prey to therapists who flunked Abnormal Psych in grad school!
9
As the mother of a daughter who committed suicide and an adult son who suffers from depression, and a family nurse practitioner of 35 years, I believe that attachment theory is simplistic in its current application. Bowlby's theory is elegant; however, the current interpretation of his work disregards inherited genetics and epigentic change in response to normative childhood adversity in a competitive and mean-spirited world.
Steven Pinker, Harvard psychologist, is spot-on: parents have, on average, a 10 to 15% influence on their children. Biology and the macro-environment are potent determinants of mental wellness. When one child does well, a mother takes credit. When another does poorly, she blames herself. Parents do their best in the West but factors beyond their control affect the outcome for their children.
Raising children has become daunting in an age in which social media/social comparison, pressure to perform well, and an atmosphere of contempt create anxiety and despair among our young people. On testing, one in five sixth graders in Minnesota has thought about suicide during the previous month. Parents today need our compassion, not our blame.
Steven Pinker, Harvard psychologist, is spot-on: parents have, on average, a 10 to 15% influence on their children. Biology and the macro-environment are potent determinants of mental wellness. When one child does well, a mother takes credit. When another does poorly, she blames herself. Parents do their best in the West but factors beyond their control affect the outcome for their children.
Raising children has become daunting in an age in which social media/social comparison, pressure to perform well, and an atmosphere of contempt create anxiety and despair among our young people. On testing, one in five sixth graders in Minnesota has thought about suicide during the previous month. Parents today need our compassion, not our blame.
536
Thank you so much for this comment -- after reading this article I lay awake worrying about what damage I might have done as a mother. I have one child who is very easy and well adapted, and another who has always had struggles. I see in them traces of the personality of some relatives. From my personal experience I believe that much of personality is there from birth, but I still worry a lot about how I might have negatively influenced them in various ways. So I try, day by day, to do better from this time on.
2
Sometimes when the child does poorly, the mother blames the child. Or the ex-husband. Or institutionalized racism. Or genetics or vaccines or...the dog. Problem kids tend to have problem parents. This is cyclical. Egg and chicken and egg...
4
Tobi--and boy do people who are lucky enough not to have mental illness in the family like to congratulate themselves on how great they are. Reminds me of Trump congratulating himself on his wealth.
Many mental illnesses are now known to be genetic. Bipolar, which Carrie Fisher suffered from, is shown to be clearly genetic in identical twin studies. But blame the poor for their poverty, right?
Many mental illnesses are now known to be genetic. Bipolar, which Carrie Fisher suffered from, is shown to be clearly genetic in identical twin studies. But blame the poor for their poverty, right?
3
Great review of Attachment Theory! As Fonaghy emphasizes, the social context of psychotherapy, the curative potential of a new empathic relationship, is needed to help individuals create secure and sustaining attachment patterns that are different from their original parental relationships.
1
The Amish have a beautiful tradition of cuddling and loving and picking up their children when they cry for the first two years of life. Once they turn two they start to learn to self sooth. As they grow older the family unit is strong and they go to school, do chores, yet always have time to play. They grow into strong adults thanks to the way they grow up.
The only way that those who have never known this type of stability and love are able to mimic it is if they are taught to do so. We should do more to invest in low income families and teach them these skills. Talk about a great way to break the cycle of violence.
The only way that those who have never known this type of stability and love are able to mimic it is if they are taught to do so. We should do more to invest in low income families and teach them these skills. Talk about a great way to break the cycle of violence.
10
Nice to know that 50% of folks are neglected as infants, but it makes mental illness sound like a birthmark instead of a problem that needs social tolerance and intervention. Although teenage mothers may be an obvious risk group, the statistics seem to state that all mothers are at risk. I'm not sure they have good answers if 19,000 facilitators have been sent out in 20 countries to address this gushing leak. Although people do divorce, most people don't divorce during a child's infancy. How does one account for blundering child care worker?
I know we aren't going to get through life unscathed and it's good to teach children to build trustworthy relationships in their lives. Expecting one's parents to be trustworthy is step one; so much can go wrong after that. I would be more interested in the effect of facilitators on the teenagers themselves. Surely these mothers are biologically altered by effective therapy; the brain is malleable.
I know we aren't going to get through life unscathed and it's good to teach children to build trustworthy relationships in their lives. Expecting one's parents to be trustworthy is step one; so much can go wrong after that. I would be more interested in the effect of facilitators on the teenagers themselves. Surely these mothers are biologically altered by effective therapy; the brain is malleable.
24
Philosophy had already posited that human essence can be defined as the ensemble of social relations. There is no such thing as individuals. We are social individuals. We can only individuate in society. Universality cannot exist without particularity and singularity. Language is another evidence of the social link.
The problem with psychology is its emphasis on the study of isolated individuals. This flawed bias reflects the ideological construction associated with the meaning of subjectivity in our society. From Locke and Descartes on humans have been posited as individuals and their mind as a singularity without a universal. Mind however is a social phenomenon.
Blaming parents for insecure "attachment" falls in the same fallacy as it presupposes autonomous parents capable of controlling schedules, their own unconscious mental constructions, or the larger social context in which they are embedded.
More precise about the article is the idea that we seem to attach to shiny objects like phones instead of others. However, this is an ideological consequence of taking social relations for relations between things. The fetishism of the commodities or the belief that money breeds money further confirms that. Insecure attachment starts the moment we are born in a society where profit and its augmentation take precedence over human needs.
We still live in the kingdom of need. Freedom awaits us. Let's find it.
The problem with psychology is its emphasis on the study of isolated individuals. This flawed bias reflects the ideological construction associated with the meaning of subjectivity in our society. From Locke and Descartes on humans have been posited as individuals and their mind as a singularity without a universal. Mind however is a social phenomenon.
Blaming parents for insecure "attachment" falls in the same fallacy as it presupposes autonomous parents capable of controlling schedules, their own unconscious mental constructions, or the larger social context in which they are embedded.
More precise about the article is the idea that we seem to attach to shiny objects like phones instead of others. However, this is an ideological consequence of taking social relations for relations between things. The fetishism of the commodities or the belief that money breeds money further confirms that. Insecure attachment starts the moment we are born in a society where profit and its augmentation take precedence over human needs.
We still live in the kingdom of need. Freedom awaits us. Let's find it.
31
Very true. If our treatment as children was all there was to it, each flawed parent (which is all of us) would introduce more and more disfunction and we would fail. Its never your 'parent's fault' its always yours (mine). Mind orders, nothing else does, therefore the universe is ordered by mind. Science can make a very good cave painting of things sometimes, but the will to act upon the incessant rise of entropy is all you (I) have. Start locally...
2
Please name the societies that are free by the standards you describe.
1
Parents obviously have an influence on future relationships. It is sensible, not 'blaming' to acknowledge this. Of course you can go too far by always looking back to your parents, but it seems like denial to try to remove them from the equation.
The general hopefulness that this comment ends on ("Freedom awaits us. Let's find it.)" is valuable, but so is that from the article, which one could say as "Know thyself."
The general hopefulness that this comment ends on ("Freedom awaits us. Let's find it.)" is valuable, but so is that from the article, which one could say as "Know thyself."
I am appalled at the percentages quoted here--40-50% of babies are insecure? That's horrid!
13
Without making light of the 40-50% that seems to appall you, here in my neck of the woods, a Syrian refugee camp housing tens of thousands of children, that percentage is close to 100%. Now, that's horrid!
1
That's an utterly meaningless statistic. What does "insecure" mean, and how do you measure it numerically?
3
There is a reason this piece is in the opinion section. The study the author cites is 30 years old, a whole other universe ago in terms of parenting, and is not intended to develop general percentages of unattached children. It's a poorly chosen and outdated piece of evidence. Murphy also ignores the current interest in the fact that babies, too, have personalities, which impact how parents respond to them. Murphy has a personal Mommy-War agenda (which is why this is in the opinion section). That said, all the research agrees that if your infant (under 6 months) is crying, absolutely pick her up promptly.
6
Many people should not have children. No one can be a perfect parent. But you have to know how to be good enough. And many people have no clue what it takes do that.
When I asked my own mother why she didn't take any parenting classes or read parenting books or join a parenting group or something, anything, to learn about being a parent, she said "I didn't think I needed to know anything. My mother didn't know anything, so I didn't think I needed it either."
There should be some kind of license required for parenting and continuing education classes required after birth as well. It should NOT be a right. Parenting is a privilege for people who have either the natural ability or the ability and willingness to commit to learn how to do it appropriately.
And it's not about money. Rich or poor has nothing to do with it. It's about a capacity to love and to give love and security to the child, and to be able to tune in to what the child needs and wanting to meet the child's needs.
Too many parents have children to GET love for themselves and get their own needs met. Those people should not be allowed to become parents....
When I asked my own mother why she didn't take any parenting classes or read parenting books or join a parenting group or something, anything, to learn about being a parent, she said "I didn't think I needed to know anything. My mother didn't know anything, so I didn't think I needed it either."
There should be some kind of license required for parenting and continuing education classes required after birth as well. It should NOT be a right. Parenting is a privilege for people who have either the natural ability or the ability and willingness to commit to learn how to do it appropriately.
And it's not about money. Rich or poor has nothing to do with it. It's about a capacity to love and to give love and security to the child, and to be able to tune in to what the child needs and wanting to meet the child's needs.
Too many parents have children to GET love for themselves and get their own needs met. Those people should not be allowed to become parents....
357
Oh, but so many of us have the ability--the ability to become parents. That's the rub.
24
I've never understood why adopting a child is a process (rightly) bound by all sorts of checks and requisites, when no such consideration is given by the law to natural born children. Because it's natural, it's supposedly a universal right, I suppose. But there are all sorts of other natural instincts that we as a species have chosen not to indulge, designing laws and rules that counterbalance our biological conditioning. And yet we're relatively cavalier about the right to bear children and the meaning of proper parenting.
11
I feel like you just spoke my mind, exactly! There are so many areas of life where a permit, a license or a degree are necessary, yet one of the most important things one can do as a human being is open to all, no questions asked!
As a single mother I took all the available classes before and after birth because I was clueless and I didn't trust my own instincts (still not sure I would have passed the test I have in mind, and will forever feel guilty for all that I've inflicted on my child [taking the test linked here I was deemed dismissive high avoidant])
From a young age I thought that not being able to have children should be the default setting and only qualified and motivated people should get access to the antidote.
As a single mother I took all the available classes before and after birth because I was clueless and I didn't trust my own instincts (still not sure I would have passed the test I have in mind, and will forever feel guilty for all that I've inflicted on my child [taking the test linked here I was deemed dismissive high avoidant])
From a young age I thought that not being able to have children should be the default setting and only qualified and motivated people should get access to the antidote.
10
I remember being made to feel guilty about going to my son when he cried out during the night because it was the fashion then to teach infants to soothe themselves so that they might become strong and independent individuals. I went to him anyway and he's become a strong an interdependent human being, thank you very much.
Luckily I was able to be there for him and I feel for parents who re so overworked and stressed they can't be. It seems socially expedient to help families, but who knows where we're headed?
Luckily I was able to be there for him and I feel for parents who re so overworked and stressed they can't be. It seems socially expedient to help families, but who knows where we're headed?
337
I did NOT race to my son or my daughter if they cried out during the night - I first gave them a chance to soothe themselves. They are now both (44 and 47) strong and independent individuals who are outstanding parents and are also raising strong, independent children. They have no trouble forming close relationships and are highly confident.
Attachment theory does not mean that one must leap up at the first murmur of distress in ones child. It means that if there is truly something important, a parent is there for that child and when with the child is fully engaged.
You are confusing all this. Parents need sleep and even infants must learn to comfort themselves as no parent can always be there all the time.
Attachment theory does not mean that one must leap up at the first murmur of distress in ones child. It means that if there is truly something important, a parent is there for that child and when with the child is fully engaged.
You are confusing all this. Parents need sleep and even infants must learn to comfort themselves as no parent can always be there all the time.
132
Thank you. When my 25-year-old son was an infant, there was social pressure to "Ferberize" him, i.e., to let him cry himself to sleep. I felt that such an approach was cold and cruel, so I gave my son comfort when he needed it (and lots of love throughout his life). My son is now a wonderful young man - - strong, confident, interdependent, and also compassionate.
I hear complaints that today's college students are too coddled, too easily offended, that they're "precious snowflakes" who would fall apart without their safe spaces. I think this trend is a result of too much Ferberizing when they were infants. So many current college students became insecurely attached as a result of such parenting techniques, and as a result they lack resilience.
I hear complaints that today's college students are too coddled, too easily offended, that they're "precious snowflakes" who would fall apart without their safe spaces. I think this trend is a result of too much Ferberizing when they were infants. So many current college students became insecurely attached as a result of such parenting techniques, and as a result they lack resilience.
20
As a longtime (40 years) early childhood professional I am excited to see this critically needed information go mainstream. I agree with other comments that the way our current US society works is typically harmful to the development of secure attachment (which is key to healthy brain development). Limited or no maternity leave? Devices distracting us constantly? Parents with no parenting training or support? Trauma-impacted parents without insurance coverage for counseling? Incarcerated parents? As a society we need to shift our priorities to nurture attachment - for a healthy future society. I often wonder about the connection between mass shootings and poor attachment. Thank you for this article.
12
I adopted a 7 year old from foster care with a severe background of abuse and neglect. The attachment insecurity is difficult to deal with for both his adoptive parents and him, but we have made progress, despite all odds. The issue is much, much more complex than this brief article.
Attachment issues go back for many decades for generations, and to cultures, like ours in the US that does not support parenting and young children and it's all about individual responsibility, not societal responsibility for nurturing our young. In other cultures, children are required to support their parents when they age.
So much is implicit and unconscious and unaddressed. We all should be encouraged to become more aware and reflective about our unconscious assumptions and caregiving.