Talk:Attachment parenting

Reference request

Is there a third-party reliable source reference, that proves that Sears coined the term "attachment parenting"? I realize that that's what it says at attachmentparenting.com, but that's what's called a primary source. Anybody could make a webpage like "slicedbread.com" and put it on it, "John Smith coined the term 'sliced bread'". So, do we have a reliable peer-reviewed secondary source that says that Sears originated the term? --Elonka 06:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want, you can go ahead and add a citation tag, or just move it here and request the source. Joie de Vivre 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to criticism removed

The "Criticism" section of an encyclopedia article should not be followed by a rebuttal. Wikipedia is not a debate forum. I have removed the section and placed it here so that the arguments can be worked into the main article if someone wants to do so. Joie de Vivre 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I added back the statement from Attachment Parenting International (it's now immediately after the American Academy of Pediatrics criticism) since this was a legitimate reference and not original research. Fionah 08:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I clarified that was the response to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Warning (which it is) and added the link to the CPSC statement. I believe the API has a seperate respose the the American Academy of Pediatrics study (which was a completely different study). Xerxes787 15:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed section here

Attachment parenting adherents argue that the extra parenting effort is an investment in future ease, since the resulting strong relationship often makes future parenting simpler. Rather than being "strenuous", attachment parenting theory regards being available to one's children as natural and instinctive.

In response to the above-mentioned American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement recommending against co-sleeping, Attachment Parenting International issued a response which alleged the data referenced in the statement was unreliable, and that co-sponsors of the campaign had created a conflict of interest. This response also outlines calls for an "objective, comprehensive, and independent report which analyzes the relative risk of all types of sleeping environments. Only when that is available can the CPSC truly assist parents in making the best decisions for their family."

External links section

This section had nearly 20 links plus a book list. I have removed these per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory, and substituted the dmoz template. Anyone interested in adding links to this article should click on the link for the Open Directory Project in the External links section, and see about submitting the link there. Joie de Vivre 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.natural-parenting.net

Bias?

Seems a bit biased, but maybe it is just me. I know there has been more criticism regarding the hindering of child development and social development, but that doesn't seem to be here. Am I just not seeing the neutrality? Vaguely (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Biased in which direction? Fainites ^barley 10:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can any attachment parenting person explain why the API site has material from and direct links to attachment therapy sites? Fainites ^barley 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific definition

I just moved the bit about "a pseudoscientific definition of reactive attachment disorder" from the introductory part of the article to the Criticism section.

I think the former placement gave too much emphasis to this issue and gave the reader an impression that the whole AP is "pseudoscientific", which I think is not fair.

Besides, this critical point is suspectible, as it lacks references. Where exactly has this "pseudoscientific" definition been forwarded. I did not find any reference to DSM-IV in "The Attachment Parenting Book" by Sears & Sears. I have just translated that book into Finnish.

Jussi Hirvi (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The API site contain an Attachment therapy version of Reactive attachment disorder (which bears little relation to the DSM-IV-TR version) from an attachment therapy website here. It also provides a link on the same page to Nancy Thomas - a proponent of attachment parenting as used within attachment therapy. These unvalidated "do-it-yourself" diagnosis lists have been heavily criticised by the APSAC Taskforce report on attachment therapy as has the form of attachment parenting used within attachment therapy. Indeed proponents of Sears AP wrote to the Taskforce in a published letter pointing out that their version of attachment parenting was indeed a very different thing - something the Taskforce acknowledged. Such links on the API site are therefore relevent and of interest.Fainites ^barley 22:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction: Attachment styles, reactive attachment disorder and attachment parenting

There was a black-and-white distinction made in the intro, which I just corrected. The misconception presented that "Either the child developed secure attachment to parents OR the child was at risk to develop Reactive Attachment Disorder" (RAD). However, the RAD is very rare condition, and is not complementary concept to secure attachment. If the child is not securely attached, he will most typically be a) avoidantly or b) ambivalently or c) disorganizedly attached. These are forms of insecure attachment, and most pathological of these is disorganized attachment. However, in all of these secure and insecure attachments the child has formed relatively stable attachment style (which is, internal mental models of self and others, and their relationships). In RAD there is total lack of attachment style (the child lacks expectations of others and has no sense who is their caregiver), and this condition is mostly encountered for example within orphanages with constantly changing caregivers. I have seen this black-and-white rhetoric in somewhere else, but really it seems unfair. For normal parents it is not the question whether your child develops attachment - it is the question what kind of attachment it will be. Of course the most optimal form of attachment is the secure style. Jalind (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To continue, RAD and attachment styles are well presented at the homepage of Attachment Parenting International http://www.attachmentparenting.org/support/articles/artadoption.php . As the state wiki-page is at the moment, it seems difficult to justify the inclusion of RAD in any way. It is only mentioned at the introduction and at the criticism part, but does not fit nicely in either place. Do you agree to remove RAD-section from criticism and shorten it in intro? Jalind (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about the styles and from the point of view of Sears attachment parenting it probably wouldn't be necessary to include RAD. However, unfortunately API have used an Attachment therapy definition and description of RAD, not a mainstream definition, on their website. I think some of the editing here has been to address this. Attachment therapy promotes RAD and attachment disorder as far more prevalent than it actually is, and promotes lists of non-specific alleged "symptoms". API went to some trouble to write to the Taskforce who reported on attachment therapy to explain how Attachment Parenting was different to the type practiced by Attachment therapists. Perhaps that open letter and the response (accepting their distinctions) should be cited here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

These can be important topics to provide information about. As far as I understand, the Attachment parenting paradigm aims to give guidelines for parenting practices, whereas Attachment therapy is broad category of psychological treatments for socioemotional/mental health problems. If there exists some ambiguity between Attachment parenting and Attachment therapy, it could be handled in normal wikipedia style by stating that some term migh reference to multiple things and provide links. Now in Introduction there is maybe unnecessary too lenghty reference to Attachment therapy. Otherwise, my suggestion would be to move these issues under topic "Critisism" or (perhaps more neutral) "Controversial issues". After all, even as API may be major informant of AP, Attachment parenting is paradigm or movement, and thus is not controlled by any single institute. At least I hope that the major power behind AP really is scientific research which has demonstrated in last decades the significance of early relationships and attachment. Jalind (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW Fainities, I have been wondering about this diagnostical criteria -issue. Can you, or someone else, kindly specify where do API claim unofficial/misleading diagnostic criteria for RAD (mentioned in the Introduction)? There is link to http://www.attachmentparenting.org/support/articles/artadoption.php and there I can find table titled "The Symptoms of RAD". However, this explicitly refers to symptoms of RAD, and does not claim to be the diagnostical criteria. In subnote it is stated that this is "based on DSM-IV" and "Peachtree Attachment Resources". For me, these subnotes reveal that these symptoms are not directly copied from DSM-IV, but are modified from that by Peachtree. The distinction is similar when comparing symptoms of depression (e.g. Beck's Depression Inventory: e.g. thoughts of suicide) and diagnostical criteria of depression (e.g. DSM-IV: e.g. duration of depression) - they refer to different concepts and are not meant to completely overlap.Jalind (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, did some editing following my reasoning. Just correct if strongly disagree.Jalind (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that Peachtree Resources (which don't seem to exist anymore) were attachment therapists and the list of symptoms is one of the types of lists of symptoms specifically criticised by the Taskforce in their report on attachment therapy. These symptoms lists are all over the web so I'm not surprised API used one. The other point worthy of note is the link to RAD includes links to other well know attachment therapists. It should be born in mind that one of the criticisms of the Taskforce on attachment therapy was that it claims to be based on attachment theory but isn't. I have no reason to doubt the claim that Sears type AP is based on their understanding of attachment theory but the type of AP practised by attachment therapists is a somewhat different thing. I'm not clear whether its being suggested that API support attachment therapy and their version of attachment or whether it is simply that API have been somewhat careless in their links to information. Probably the latter is more likely as I haven't seen any other connections.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good improvements by the way. I did a little copy-editing if that's OK. When I have a moment I'll add a better potted version of attachment theory.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The section entitled Examples to help parents and caregivers create healthy attachments with infants is all very interesting, but what has it to do with AParenting? Is there a source that claims AP is specifically based on these theories? The title seems to suggest that the original author had in mind providing ideas for parents rather than describing AP. The earliest Sears book API sells is The Baby Book from 1993. In 2002 there was one called Attachment Parenting. These books should describe the theoretical basis for AP.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read all of DR. Sears' books and I think it is very interesting that this article has such an emphasis on these disorders. When I think of attachment parenting I only think about the importance of baby-wearing, co-sleeping and breast feeding.If you go on Dr.Sears' site and there is not a single mention about RAD? {http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/t130300.asp} (Hapamama (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC))

When I last looked the API page contained a direct link to attachment therapy material on RAD and the attachment therapy versions of "attachment parenting". [1]. As I said below - it may be that API have simply been careless about their information rather than specifically supporting ATP - but they use Nancy Thomas, a prime ATP proponent as a direct source on that page. (I hope you don't mind me moving this exchange to bottom of the thread otherwise people will miss it!)[User:Fainites|Fainites]] ^barleyscribs 16:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

AP practices predate the term Attachment Parenting

It should probably be mentioned in the article that all of the parenting practices that comprise attachment parenting practices predate Dr. William Sears creating the name "Attachment Parenting". Baby-wearing, co-sleeping, extended breastfeeding, etc. where all practiced by various tribal groups and indigenous groups before Sears called said practitioners attachment parents. AP simply is a name given to the combination of these practices combined into a parenting philosophy. --Cab88 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yes and no. Sears consciously followed through what he considered to be a logical extension of attachment theory (though attachment theorists may well disagree). But attachment theory is of course based on an understanding of what humans actually do and why. I don't think Sears 8 principles specifically require the things you mention do they? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following

I removed this- Less sensitive and emotionally available parenting or neglect of the child's needs may result in insecure forms of attachment style, which is a risk factor for many mental health problems.Where is the scientific data to back this up? And what are the many mental health problems? Are the many mental health problems Depression,Schizophrenia,OCD? There are no sources to back up this claim. And if there are any, they need to added to the article before this statement goes back in.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are sources to back up this claim. I'll put it back in (including references, of course), also because of its importance in the introduction. Now it looks like there is either secure attachment or reactive attachment disorder - which is misleading and could cause worries in parents who are not too sure about the quality of attachment of their child(ren). Lisiduna (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed this statement about cosleeping from the introduction

I removed this statement from the introduction :

"In the United States, the popularization of co-sleeping coincided with increases in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome mortality and inadvertent infant strangulation–suffocation. Therefore, he American College of Pediatricians and the Consumer Products Safety Commission warn parents not to practice co-sleeping."

Here are the reasons :

- data seems to contradict the claim that SIDS increased recently.

- the statement fails to make the distinction between cosleeping (sleeping in the same room) and bedsharing (sleeping in the same bed).

- the American College of Pediatricians does consider bedsharing dangerous, but only when coupled with the parent under influence of drugs or alcohol, (or has his awareness impaired for any other reason), or smoking, or when the bed surface is too soft (as in a sofa). About bedsharing in normal conditions, it only says that its benefits are not confirmed by studies.

- the statement is too long and only partly pertains to the topic of attachment parenting ; after all, there is an article about cosleeping. Therefore, the statement should be in the criticism section rather than in the introduction. However, as there already is such a claim in that section, I simply deleted the statement.

Goutte de pluie (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Potenial COI edits

A person affiliated with Attachment Parenting International contacted me via e-mail and was concerned about some of content and attribution in this article. This person attempted to change the article, but those edits had some formatting issues, appeared to have COI, and were reverted. I am requesting that others take a look at those edits and see what they think. Furthermore, I encouraged that person to discuss the issues on this talk page. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Sears was not the first one to use the term AP. There are earlier works from Tammy Frissell-Deppe and from Katie Allison Granju that carry the term in the title. Please check and possibly update. --Stilfehler (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, Martha Sears claims that she and her husband coined the term ([2] citation online available also in a GoogleBook by Barbara Nicholson&Lysa Parker; I find this citation extremely interesting, since it discloses the whole falsity of the scientific claim). --Stilfehler (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What I am missing in this article is a clearer differentiation between AP and attachment theory, plus a clear differentiation between AP and older concepts of childrearing (such as for instance Benjamin Spock who heavily focused on motherly sensitivity as well as on common sense, half a century before Sears&Sears). Why is Spock not good enough? I think this is a question to be tackled in order to really describe what AP is about. --Stilfehler (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Later in the page, it says that he read it in a book, and picked it up from there. That is directly contradictory from him coining it himself. Emmawingate (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Statements under 7 tenets seem biased

This whole article seems a bit biased, but there seem to be rebuttals posed under each of the "7 baby b's" These all seem to be there for the sole purpose of disproving and contradicting the practice rather than giving an unbiased explanation of what it is. Criticism should be kept in the criticism section.

A growing number of Wikipedians are convinced that criticism sections are bad style and to be avoided: "Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow." Wikipedia:Criticism, [3] The article certainly includes criticism, but I think William Sears' points of view have their fair share of representation. --Stilfehler (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attachment parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618130458/http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/PRHTML99/99175.html to http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/PRHTML99/99175.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Attachment parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128113651/http://www.babble.com/celebrity/kimya-dawson-moldy-peaches-alphabutt-and-attachment-parenting/ to http://www.babble.com/celebrity/kimya-dawson-moldy-peaches-alphabutt-and-attachment-parenting/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118014948/http://www.kent.ac.uk/chss/staff/research/macvarish.html to http://www.kent.ac.uk/chss/staff/research/macvarish.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210114347/http://www.diaperdecisions.com/pages/attachmentparenting.php to http://www.diaperdecisions.com/pages/attachmentparenting.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Article Images

I would like to know where the citations for the images are. I am new to Wikipedia, and I am not positive if the citations are missing, or just difficult for me to find. Are there citations for all of the images? Emmawingate (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Fundamental Terms and Criticism - Depth

The majority of this article stems from work by William Sears, as well as his wife. While he was a physician, most of his claims seem unfounded. You even mentioned earlier in the article that some of his theories is based off of his personal parenting experience. We know that there were more criticisms, and yet all that is mentioned here is his lack of consistency in fundamental terms. This is a problem, especially given how important operational definitions are in the field of biology and psychology. That being said, this is by far not the only problem with his work, and there were disputations within the earlier sections. This needs to be expanded upon, a criticism section should have more than one sentence. You could easily move this section under controversy, which would help the flow. Emmawingate (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)