Talk:John Bowlby

• Archive 1 of previous discussion
• Archive 2 of previous discussion

Photo of father and child irrelevant but picture of mother and child relevant. Why?

Compare amendment made to this page with photo of mother and child on;-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

Kingsley Miller

answer; editorial bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Kip - please try to assume good faith. There was no picture of a mother and child on this page. This is a biography of Bowlby and was supposed to have a picture of Bowlby but it got removed. Further you've put that same picture on quite a number of number of articles now.Fainites ^barley 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maternal Deprivation -dates

You cannot give EXACT dates for the effects of maternal deprivation. To do so would be silly as each child is not exactly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I SHOULD LIKE TO CALL A 'TRUCE' ON THIS PAGE REGARDING THE THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIK PROCEDURE FOR ARBITRATION.

I have fundamental concerns about the edits to this section by Fainties

22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see maternal deprivation talkpage for the substance of this discussion. Fainites ^barley 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rearranged some material to put it in a more chronological/developmental form. I think the involvement with evolutionary and ethological concepts should go earlier than details of his later published works. Fainites ^barley 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No you have not.

You have altered the content as a result of my complaint.

Where are your sources?

You have not included sources because they lie in the complaint.

You are a complete and absolute disgrace!

You have sought to confuse the theory of Maternal deprivation with the Attachment Theory

STOP YOUR VANDALISM!

89.242.80.51 (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your version of maternal deprivation and attachment theory significantly confused the two and misrepresented both Rutter and Bowlby. In maternal deprivation Bowlby mentions the first 6 months of an infants life. In attachment theory, attachment behaviours develop after around 7 or 8 months. Further, monotropy and imprinting are features of attachment theory, not maternal deprivation. The alleged 'significant differences' between maternal deprivation and attachment theory that you have set out on Rutters page and the maternal deprivation page and to a lesser extent here, from Rutters 1995 paper, are in fact, as is clearly stated in Rutters paper, developments in attachment theory, not distinctions from maternal deprivation. Your repeated statement that Bowlby is famous only for maternal deprivation and that he is not the author of attachment theory is frankly bizarre. Fainites ^barley 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fainites/barley/nonsense

What you have written above is nonsense. You have acted in 'bad faith' throughout so I have contacted an independent editor for help. Please stop making edits about things you do not understand. You are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. People are watching these pages so I will also copy it to my own TALK page.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kip do you have Rutters 1995 paper - including the first two pages? Please can you set out the paragraphs where you say it is said he is describing the differences between MD and AT - because thats not what my copy says. Fainites ^barley 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kip can you please post the parts of the Rutter paper you are relying on to say these four elements you have listed from the paper show differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory rather than developoments in attachment theory. For the avoidance of doubt, my copy of the paper says as follows:

• 1994 marks the 25th anniversary of the publication of the first volume of Bowlby's hugely important trilogy on attachment (Bowlby 1969/82, 1972 and 1980)......(He then runs through historical background, including maternal deprivation monograph in 1951 and need for reappraisal of key components etc and what he sees as the key element of maternal deprivation - ie )....the argument was that the formation of a relationship with the growing child was as an important part of parenting as the provision of experiences, discipline and child care...Although rejected by some at the time, (see casler 1968) this view is now generally accepted....The argument focussed attention on the need to consider parenting in terms of consistency of caregivers over time and parental sensitivity to childrens individuality. The trilogy on attachment took matters forward in 5 key ways... (then he lists the main components of attachment theory from the trilogy).....All of these key components have recieved substantial support from empirical research.......Of course the early specification did not prove correct in all its details. Perhaps there are four main changes that have taken place over the years...(He then lists the four main changes you have listed)....Nevertheless, these modifications aside, the major tenets of attachment theory have been broadly confirmed. Of course that is not to say there is not a host of crucial questions remaining to be answered."

If you say this reading of the paper is incorrect, please indicate how.Fainites ^barley 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also you have removed properly sourced information relating to Bowlby's major work - attachment theory - without discussion - and replaced it with information with a very narrow focus that does not fairly represent Bowlby's work and seems to be designed to attack him rather than fairly present his contribution, warts and all. I have removed the unsourced and incorrectly sourced items from 'legacy' that did not support the claims you made for them. It is not right to simply say that someone is a 'supporter' of his because they describe him as the 'founder' of attachment theory. Many mainstream works that deal with the history of attachment describe him in similar terms or the 'originator', or say AT was 'developed by' JB and so on. I can provide you with a number of sources for this if you wish but really it is a commonplace. The other person sometimes bracketed with him - on the same, not a rival theory - is Mary Ainsworth. If you want to say Bowlby is not the originator or founder or developer or whatever word you choose then you need to find a secondary source that says so. For example, has Rutter anywhere said words to the effect that though Bowlby is claimed by some to be the originator of AT, in fact the true originators are.... or anything along those lines? Fainites ^barley 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to 3PO person After posting of this request - there was some discussion on Kingsleys talkpage at [1]. Thereafter Kingsley has copied some of the contents of his talkpage onto the Michael Rutter talkpage.(!) I would be happy to e-mail the paper to whoever is giving a 3PO. The original edit here was [2] I removed it from several articles but an almost identical version is on the Michael Rutter page. Fainites ^barley 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Okay. Without both of you getting hysterical, I want a very short, concise, and calm explanation as to what the problem is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. "Maternal deprivation" appears in a work of Bowlbys called "Maternal care and Mental health" in 1951. Later he formulated and published a theory known as "attachment theory" because there was no theory as to the whys and wherefores of early relationships he thought adequate. In Rutters 1995 paper Rutter sets out the 5 main tenets of attachment theory from the 1969 main work on attachment theory and says they have been supported by empirical research. He then sets out 4 elements of attachment theory which have not. Monotropy, imprinting, sensitive period and later social relationships. Kingsley says these are not developments in attachment theory but are differences between attachment theory and "maternal deprivation". I say a) it is obvious from reading Rutters paper that he is referring to attachment theory, not maternal deprivation and b) the elements described are features of attachment theory not maternal deprivation anyway. Thats all. Would you like the paper e-mailed? Fainites ^barley 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want copies of the paper. Whether or not they're developments or differences is irrelevant to Wikipedia unless the sources say otherwise. Whatever you or Kingsley think is irrelevant, as that's original research. Stick only to what the sources say. If you can find a secondary source that says "Rutter's tenets are developments" or "Rutter's tenets are differences," then use that to back it up. Does this make sense? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean - but isn't this getting into secondary sources of secondary sources? Rutter is secondary source saying Bowlbys attachment theory says this but it no longer says this. I think its plain English what he says. Kip says it says that. The dispute isn't about mine or Kips interpretation of whats a difference and whats a development. Its much more basic thatn that. Its whether Rutter says they are developments in attachment theory or differences to maternal deprivation which is really just a question of reading! (I don't think any of it needs to be in the article anyway as there are plenty of sources on the devlopments in attachment theory from 1969 to date. I have already removed the whole section from articles at least once but it will be put back again unless this issue is resolved). Fainites ^barley 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's secondary of secondary; as an established person in his field, Rutter is qualified to comment on other people's writings. You said it, though: "is really just a question of reading!" And that translates into WP:OR. Neither of you should be conjecturing on the nature of what he wrote. If you can find another secondary source that explains Rutter, then that's one thing. But because there's no definitive answer one way or the either, then you can't say anything about it. There's three ways out of this: one, find secondary sources; two, remove the conjecture and say only what Rutter says; or three, remove the section altogether. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. How do we say 'only what Rutter says' if one says he says white and the other says he says black and each claims the ohter is wrong? Do see what I mean when I say its just a question of reading rather than conjecture? If you look under the section above I typed out most of the section in the hope that would resolve the matter. (I'd be happy with the 'remove the section altogether' option myself). Fainites ^barley 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant like... write out the five tenets he mentions, and leave it at that. You meant the part that starts "1994 marks the 25th anniversary", right? Who wrote the text that is quoted there? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Its all a quote from Rutters paper with the irrelevent bits left out. I copied it from Rutters paper. I didn't write out all the 5 tenets and all the 4 bits not born out by empirical research as life's too short and the 4 bits had been put in various articles. 1994 is the 25th anniversary of the publication of the first volume of attachment theory in 1969. I suppose, if I can use an analogy, its as if someone says 'this secondary source says 50,000 eggs were laid last Tuesday' and some else says 'no it doesn't, it says 500 eggs'. Its difficult to know how to resolve that unless someone else looks at the source and says its definately one or the other. Fainites ^barley 20:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's no definitive answer then it shouldn't be in the Wiki article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But what if there is a definitive answer and one editor is just being tendentious for the sake of it? That would mean a perfectly good source could never be used provided someone is prepared to pop up and say 500,000 eggs is 500 eggs when thats simply not what the paper says. Do you see the problem? if the paper were ambivalent - then fine. If a paper is not ambivalent - a tendentious editor can keep it out of articles simply by declaring that it says the opposite to what it actually does say. Surely that can't be right. Fainites ^barley 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, then, I'm really confused now, so let's start over. What would be your preferred solution here? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I'm thoroughly confused now too. On this article the reference to 500,000 or 500 eggs has been removed. However, Kingsley keeps reposting it in various articles. What I was seeking was confirmation from an independent third party as to whether the Rutter paper says 500,000 or 500 eggs, or is just an amibivalent omlette, as otherwise this argument will never end. Maybe 3PO wasn't the right place to go. What I had in mind was e-mailing the paper to someone reasonably knowledgeable and completely independent who could say whether it was 500,000 or 500 eggs. Do you see? One can't rely on numbers of editors to achieve consensus on these more obscure articles. Fainites ^barley 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm definitely not qualified for that. I would think that the best solution here would be to leave out the eggs entirely. And go get a burger. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely you mean a healthy, wholemeal salad with lots of green vitamins and no fun. on second thoughts - stick with the burger. Thanks for all your help anyway HelloAnnyong. Nice meeting you. Fainites ^barley 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources as to origins of attachment theory

Some sources in support of the notion that Bowlby is the originator, formulator or developer of attachment theory or that it emanates from him.

• "Bowlby's theory. This represents the most comprehensive theory of human attachment." Gross. 2005.
• From the early days when he was criticised by academic psychologists and ostracized by the psychoanalytic community attachment concepts have become generally accepted. That they have become so is a tribute to the creativity and perceptiveness of Bowlbys original formulations and to the major conceptual and methodological contributions of Mary Ainsworth. It is also a function however of Bowlby's willingness to respond to empirical findings by modifying attachment concepts when research data indicated changes were necessary." Rutter 1995.
• "Ethological attachment theory, as outlined by John Bowlby (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980), has provided one of the most important frameworks for understanding crucial risk and protective factors in social and emotional development in the first 3 years of life." Zeanah 1996
• "Attachment theory was introduced and described in detail by John Bowlby in his many papers and books....Bowlby's trilogy (1969/82, 1973,1980) considered the formation of attachment, separation and loss......What is remarkable is the extent to which Bowlby's writing and predictions, which were based on extensive observations, have been proved correct. The theory has stood the test of empirical scrutiny....." Prior and Glaser in Understanding Attachment published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit. 2006.
• "There are two individuals who dominated the early formative years of attachment theory and who were responsible for its core concepts: John Bowlby... and Mary Ainsworth... To understand the revolutionary nature of Bowlby's thinking and how it represented a radical departure from the traditional psychoanalytic model, a little history is in order...." Pearce and Pezzot-Pearce, Psychotherapy of Abused and Neglected Children. Guilford Press.2007.
• "Because he found himself dissatisfied with traditional theories, Bowlby sought new understanding through discussion with colleagues from such fileds as evolutionary biology, ethology, developmental psycholog, cognitive science and control systems theory (Bowlby 1969/82) He drew upon all these fields to formulate the innovative proposition...etc etc ...Bowlby (1958, 1960b, 1960c) introduced attachment theory in a series of papers....all of the major points of attachment theory were presented there in at least rudimentary form...these ideas were later elaborated in Bowlby's trilogy..." The Nature of a Childs Ties, in "Handbook of Attachment" Cassidy 1999. Guilford press.
• "Melding ideas from Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, object relations theory, control systems theory, evolutionary biology and the fields of ethology and cognitive psychology, Bowlby (1969/82,1973,1980) developed a grand theory of personality development across the lifespan - attachment theory. One reason why attachment theory is so unique, generative and prominent in contemporary social and behavioural sciences is because of its deep, foundational ties to principles of evolution." Simpson. Attachment Theory in Modern Evolutionary Perspective. Handbook of Attachment. supra.
• All relationships including the primary one between parent and child, involve a range of dimensions; it is the attachment dimension however that has been given by far the most attention in the last few decades and about which we have learned the most. This is largely thanks to the writings of John Bowlby (1969/82, 1973, 1980) whose attachment theory has become the dominant approach to understanding early social development and given rise to a great surge of empirical research into the formation of childrens close relationships." Rudolph Schaffer. Introducing Child Psychology. 2007. Blackwell.
• "Attachment theory is the joint work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Drawing on concepts from ethology, cybernetics, information processing, developmental psychology and psychoanalysts, John Bowlby formulated the basic tenets of the theory....Mary Ainsworths innovative methodology not only made it possible to test some of Bowlby's ideas empirically but also helped expand the theory itself and is responsible for some of the new directions it is now taking." "...Bowlby realised that he had to develope new theory of motivation and behaviour control, built on up-to-date science rather than the outdated psychic energy model espoused by Freud." Bretherton. The Origins of Attachment Theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. 1992. Published in Developmental Psychology

Fainites ^barley 21:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't think what other evidence is required to show that Bowlby's attachment theory was originated by Bowlby. Why does energy even need to be put into this, I wonder?

But you know what's interesting-- how few of the later contributors or discussants of this theory ever talked about the cybernetics aspect, which was what struck me most when I read JB way way back. What's also interesting about this is that cybernetics concepts would suggest some very testable hypotheses about the interactions among child's age, attachment status, distance from parent sought or tolerated, etc., But nobody seems to have done that-- although a student and I once did a study of factors in the distance preschoolers maintained from parents when walking behind them. And you know, I never thought of JB and cybernetics when we were doing that-- just of the behavior itself, which I think nobody had described. Quick, someone, here's a dissertation topic! Jean Mercer (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've only had to set it out because Kip edited the page to say "There is still a great deal of confusion regarding the contribution of John Bowlby... His supporters still claim that he is the 'founder' of the attachment theory but there were others at the time also working in the field and Bowlby himself never claimed this credit, instead he acknowledged that his work had given rise to "widespread controversy" (see; attachment therapy...)" He's also said somewhere else that its a 'minority view' and that "Bowlby would like people think he invented the 'attachment theory' but he did not!" I haven't found any confusion really about attachment theory as such. There is sometimes a bit of confusion between attachment theory and maternal deprivation out there but I think we should clarify that not add to it.Fainites ^barley 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"see: attachment therapy"-- whatever is this statement in honor of? Is the implication that any controversy over attachment therapy is really Bowlby's fault? 72.73.210.206 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it. Actually the roots of attachment therapy go back to 60s and 70s theories loosely based on much earlier bits of psychoanalysis. They would appear to have latched on to Bowlby much later although there are mainstream commentators who say attachment therapy beliefs are antithetical to attachment theory anyway. I have to confess I am a little puzzled by what appears to be an anti-Bowlby campaign or an attempt to pretty much write him out of the history of the development of attachment theory. Meanwhile the "criticism" section on the attachment theory page remains small and old. Is there any more up-to-date serious criticism of attachment theory that could go in there? Fainites ^barley 13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As the page stands at the moment it doesn't say what Bowlbys main work, attachment theory, really is or why it was of any importance and whats happened to it now. Fainites ^barley 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do about attachment theory

It's very annoying to try to patch this article together. Could we make an outline or list of issues to be covered and try to follow that?

As for criticisms of attachment theory, as far as i know there are only small comments here and there. The real problem is that it's so impractical to test some of the related hypotheses. You certainly can't do it in a randomized way, and the designs that are left are full of confounded variables. I think Rutter keeps saying, there's more to development than attachment history-- but that's not the same as saying that attachment history is irrelevant.

However, i do have some thoughts about this matter, so let me pop over there and see what i can do. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Schaffer quote above makes the point about attachment being only one dimension, but its come to dominate because of attachment theory. Fainites ^barley 22:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

re this article

I've removed the mistake about Rutter referring to MD when he's referring to AT in his 1995 article. I've also attempted to make good the articles presentation of Bowlby as if he were primarily famous for maternal deprivation yet made a merely token contribution to attachment theory. I haven't comp-leted a brief description of attachment theory though jean if you'd like to have a go. Nothing too detailed. Fainites ^barley 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes'm. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well! Where is it then? Fainites ^barley 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First give me more porridge. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good additions to legacy. I added alittle more - hope thats OK. Now you may have salt on your porridge. Fainites ^barley 22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, good example. Let me get my wooden porridge spoon to scrape off the burnt bits. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced direct quote

I'm afraid some of the material added by Frakn on 22February is verbatim from an article abstract-- although the article is cited at the end of the para, there are no quotation marks or page number to indicate a direct quote. Jean Mercer (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Frakn doesn't seem to be around at the moment. We can either put "" round it or summarise it. Fainites ^barley 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On April 14 I added quotation marks to this citation! Frakn (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Frakn. Fainites ^barley 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

I have added the POV tag because the page downplays Bowlby's theory of 'maternal deprivation', which was controversial even at the time, and makes it sound as though he was responsible for the 'attachment theory' which is not correct.

In reality Bowlby original gained his poularity from the discredited theory of 'maternal deprivation'

KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Debate on this article

On this article it is important to note that Bowlby's theories are the subject of significant debate within the psychological community, with evidence given for and against. It is vital to make sure that his main theories are stated clearly but also that they are stated neutrally. At present this article is not a good reperesentation of all the knowledge and sources that the editors of this page use on this talk page. This means it is important that on this talk page people to do not break down into arguing over what they personally believe the facts to be. It is much more important for the debate to be about what referenced sources believe the facts to be, regardless of whether or not the editor personally believes these views to be valid.

I sincerely hope this article can be improved so that it is useful to anybody wanting to find out about the facts regarding Bowlby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.51.237 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The disucussion and editing has mostly been going on recently on the Attachment theory page but things in general have been rather stalled by a mediation. By all means plunge in and edit away! Probably significant debate on pro's and cons should be more comprehensively represented on the Attachment theory page with just a summary of his contribution here in the biography. Do you have any particularly comprehensive sources in mind?Fainites ^barley 07:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag

I have removed the tag as there will now be no mediation to resolve these issues.[3] Fainites ^barley 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Age sending off to boarding school

According to this article Bowlby was sent to boarding school (Lindisfarne) at age seven. Van Dijken (1998) states that this is early 1918, so at age eleven. Bowlby visited a day school in London (Edge) from age seven. That might explain the misunderstanding?!

Frakn (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambig?

The John Bowlby in this article died in 1990. There seems to be another John Bowlby, who published a book in 1991. (Charles Darwin: a New Life, Norton, 1991.) This biography is listed in the bibliography of The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright, 1994, p. 428.

Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page and an article about him. It is possible that he has published since 1991, but Socrates, the Stanford catalog, doesn't list anything.

It's remotely possible that the eminent psychiatrist is also a biographer and that his biography was published posthumously, but it seems more likely that there is another...

I haven't actually prowled the Stanford stacks, because a Stanford library card is expensive, even for alumni. I might buy one, but not yet. A professional scholar could easily find out what I can learn only with extreme difficulty. Maybe one could be interested...

Actually, this is dubious: the Library of Congress lists all of the Bowlby books in one list, not suggesting that there might be another. Could they be mistaken? Careless? Perhaps Norton (the biography's publisher) might know. It was only published 19 years ago, and someone may remember it. Someone may have even reviewed it in a journal. (The Web has a very short memory.) But I don't know anyone at Norton. Does anyone? Donfbreed

Actually, it is apparently a posthumous book, which discusses Darwin's "mysterious illness" and concludes that it is psychosomatic. That fits. I found this by Googling the book title. There is some discussion on the topic, on the Free Online Library site. Sorry.Donfbreed (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Bowlby was a great fan of Darwin and I recall he did write a biography at some point. Maybe this is a re-issue. Thanks for the interest anyway! Certainly the fact that he wrote this Darwin book could be included in the article. Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Juvenile Thieves Study

Is this mentioned anywhere? Bowlby's work was based on his study with children sent to the provinces to board with other families during the blitz. During this time many children were exposed to abusive and neglecting situations, which in turn caused some of the behaviours. Critiques of Bowlby's research suggest that the methodology was flawed in terms of its sample group (about 70) and the conclusions/generalisations drawn. In addition there were strong political motives to ensure Bowlby's theories were accepted; during the war years the world of work had become populated by female workers, who were out performing their male counterparts who were soon to return from war, therefore there is a school of thought that the Bowlby research was used as social engineering to return women to the domestic situation.

In addition the phrase 'monotropy', where the only person who could have a 'bond' with a child is the natural mother, has since been disproven, therefore Bowlby has been somewhat discredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.23.22 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually "monotropy" does not and never did mean this although many people thought it did and indeed this myth is perpertrated on the net to this day. When I have a moment I'll dig up the passages for you. As for the first part of what you say, try Maternal deprivation which covers the 1951 hypothesis, and Attachment theory which covers the subsequent development of attachment theory.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here you are, this is what he first said about it in the 1958 paper that set out the basic ideas of attachment theory; "This focusing of instinctual responses on to a particular individual, which we find but too often ignored in human infancy, is found throughout the length and breadth of the animal kingdom. In very many species, mating responses are directed to a single member of the opposite sex, either for a season or for a lifetime, whilst it is the rule for parents to be solicitous of their own young and of no others and for young to be attached to their own parents and not to any adult. Naturally such a general statement needs amplification and qualification, but the tendency for instinctual responses to be directed towards a particular individual or group of individuals and not promiscuously towards many is one which I believe to be so important and so neglected that it deserves a special term. I propose to call it ‘monotropy’, a term which, it should be noted, is descriptive only and carries with it no pretensions to causal explanation."

Here is where he mentions the word in Volume I of "Attachment" in 1969: "Because the bias of a child to attach himself especially to one figure seems to be well established and also to have far reaching implications for psychopathology, I believe it merits a special term. In the earlier paper I referred to it as monotropy."

It never was limited to natural mothers or indeed women. Volume I of "Attachment" has a number of examples of men being primary attachment figures. Most of the research however was done on Mother/infant dyads as that was the norm in the 50's and 60's when this research was going on. The general consensus now is that attachment figures are hierarchical with the primary figure at the top but other significant attachment figures too, almost from the outset.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:John Bowlby.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:John Bowlby.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bowlby and Haltlose/Gemutlose Psychopathy

I am not familiar with Bowlby myself, but it appears that his studies on maternal deprivation and RAD shaped our understanding of Haltlose and Gemütlose psychopathy although Wikipedia makes no mention of that on those articles. Someone familiar with Bowlby would be appreciated to go there and make such additions. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)