Talk:Michael Rutter

Untitled
It is relatively easy to give examples of earlier notable child psychologists & psychiatrists. For instance, Leo Kanner, Jean Piaget, John Bowlby, Donald Winnicott, Mary Ainsworth, Lauretta Bender & Anna Freud come to mind. AussieOzborn au 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed
The material recently added by Kip, while interesting and probably relevant, lack citations. It reads more like a talk page comment than an article...I suggest finding citations to support the statements. DPeterson talk 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Style over Content

DPetersen has made the following alteration,

Although he has been described as the "father of child psychology" [1], in fact historically, there were a number of notable child psychiatrists, and child psychologists who preceded him. This is a back handed compliment. You either describe him as the "father of child psychology" or not. The way it is worded reveals the prejudice of the writer. (I had previously written he could more accurately be described as the father of modern day child psychiatry.)

DPetersen has also described Dr John Bowlby as Sir John Bowlby when he was never knighted which goes some way to explaining the prejudice against Rutter. Prof Sir Michael Rutter was instrumental in showing the flaws in Bowlby's theory of 'maternal deprivation'.

Please can somebody tell me how to change the title of the page to 'Professor Sir Michael Rutter'? - He really did get a knighthood for his contribution to the welfare of children and was the first consultant child psychiatrist in the UK. kip 22:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn with faint praise - addendum I note that he is described as an 'academic researcher' when he was a practicing doctor until very late in his career. Also I don't understand why Cambridge University stands alone. This revised biography bears all the hall marks of a hatchet job. Damned with faint praise by somebody who has no real interest in child psychology.kip 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing PSM Rutter

Please note that citing PSM Rutter's work can be difficult because much of it is contained within scientific papers not freely accessible on the internet. kip 11:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting
I have reformatted the entries for the citations and put back a few items and hyperlinks which were omitted. I also took out the signatures for past edits, which are appropriate for talk-page entries, but inappropriate for article text. There should be some consideration given for adding some categories where this falls.

I disagree with the re-titling choice of the article. I think it should be "Michael Rutter (psychiatrist)". Wikipedia's disambiguation would work better that way.

This is little more than a stub at this point. I look forward to some discussion of Sir Michael's contributions and why he should be called the "father of child psychiatry".

Larry Sarner 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well now I'm a little confused. This comment would suggest that you believe the "father of modern child psychiatry" claim is dubious, but you think the citation request was needless. We can't make inferences and if he has never been called the father of modern child psychiatry, then we can't say this. shotwell 06:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah! Hurrah!

"I have got three and fourpence and I am going to the dance!"

'Father of MODERN child psychiatry'. Try and find a psychiatrist who will disagree.

'Father' in the sense that we all, whether we appreciate it or not as described in the cited article (Review of Green & Yule, Research and Innovation on the Road to Modern Child Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry, Jan;160:196-197.[2]), have benefited from his contribution. Not that he was the first.

He has transformed the subject from a mishmash of ideas and feelings into a discipline.

Well done Larry and many thanks for putting the article right.

kip 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Please don't change the title because he has earned it! He is the real deal. Change Wikipedia.

Appreciation

I am extremely grateful to see that this page has remained essentially untouched.

Many people have heard of Bowlby primarily because of his work on 'maternal deprivation'.

This work is based on STYLE over CONTENT!!!!!!!

In the same way others have tried to fit the content of these pages into some prescribed FORMAT so Bowlby tried to fit our ideas about relationships into some sort of prescribed stereotypical FORMAT of parental relationships and he was WRONG to do so.

DPetersen is one of many in the field that have been entranced by the picture held out by Bowlby's work which seems to suggest that mother's should not pursue their own career's and fathers are incapable of looking after small children.

If Wikipedia truly reflected Bowlby's career his biographical details would show these trends in his work. It is our job to make sure that anybody reading these pages do not go away with these erroneous ideas about the upbringing of their children. However Bowlby has the media on his side for some of the reasons set out above. Some would argue the battle against these images cannot be won but at least by making the contribution of PSM Rutter's work a little more clearer some people will have a better idea about the real facts.

Many thanks again,

kip 07:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PS

"I have got three and fourpence and I am going to the dance!"

What I meant to say is,

"Send me reinforcements I am going to advance!"

because I believed the changes made to the page represented real progress.

kip 07:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ALL

Any further comments since my latest update?

KingsleyMiller 22:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Professor Sir Michael Rutter NOT Michael Rutter
Whoever,

Why has his name changed to Michael Rutter?

He is a genuine professor and was knighted for his work.

Some of the amendments made to this article are trivial and serve only to debase the subject.

Please leave it alone save restore his title!

K. Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also deleted "Professor" from the first sentence, per WP:CREDENTIAL.--Biologos (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion note
Hey. There was a third opinion put out for this page. I've removed the request since there's no actual discussion going on about the topic at hand. If you have a problem with something on the page, please discuss it here first. If no consensus has been reached, then you can seek a third opinion. Thanks. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks see below;-

Third opinion needed!

 * 1) Michael Rutter Dispute about the title for the list at the bottom of the page on Michael Rutter. Should the title read 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory' as Fainites/barley states or 'Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory' as Kingsley Miller states? (This dispute has been moved from the Kingsley Miller USER page)

MATTER FOR ARBITRATION IS WHETHER THE TITLE FOR THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ON MICHAEL RUTTER SHOULD READ;

ACCORDING TO Fainites

Significant developments in Attachment Theory

OR

ACCORDING TO Kingsley Miller

Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory

A very popular theory which has resonance even today is that mothers are more important to children than their fathers. This idea was supported by John Bowlby in his work 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' (1952) which he said, " focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother'. Even at the time there was a great deal of professional disquiet about Bowlby's work which was reflected in the World Health Organization work entitled 'Deprivation of Maternal Care; A Reassessment of its effects' (1962). This included articles from a number of leading experts all critical of Bowlby except a colleague, Mary Ainsworth, whose contribution was also included as a courtesy.

Nevertheless it was Bowlby's report that proved a best-seller and was translated into 12 languages. It has given rise to the mistaken beliefs that Bowlby's theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' and the 'attachment theory' are the same thing and that mothers are more important than fathers to their children.

A very helpful explanation of what we now describe as the theory of 'maternal deprivation' can be found in Bowlby's own words in the Citation Classic (1986) in which he defends his work 'Maternal Care and Mental Health'.

In this work he also mentions Michael Rutter as his 'erstwhile critic'. This is because he produced 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed' (1972) which effectively demolished the theory. (My work 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' is subtitled, A guide to the 'Tender Years Theory' - A critique of the principle of 'maternal deprivation' used by courts in the UK to justify contact orders between children and their parents. Professor Sir Michael Rutter described this as an 'interesting and informative guide') - The point for arbitration is whether the list at the bottom of the page on Michael Rutter should read 'Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory' or 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory'? In the article cited to verify this account Rutter analyses the key features of attachment theory and in particular the significance of Bowlby's initial writing on 'maternal deprivation' (sic) (p550). In the first part he acknowledges the contribution of Bowlby's work specifically the trilogy which he says took matters forward in 5 key areas. He goes on in the second part to say "Of course, the early specification of attachment theory did not prove correct in all details (p551). Perhaps there are 4 main changes that have taken place over the years" - It is these changes which form the differences with the attachment theory that are listed at the bottom of the page on Rutter.

The early specification of 'attachment theory' referred to in this paper by Rutter is 'maternal deprivation'. The reader be in no doubt that Rutter is specifying 'maternal deprivation' because he goes on to describe the components of 'maternal deprivation'.

(1) The abandonment of the notion of monotropy. Bowlby's early writings were widely understood to mean that there was a biological need to develop a selective attachment with just one person. (2) It came to be appreciated that social development was affected by later as well as earlier relationships. (3) Early accounts emphasized the need for selective attachments to develop during a relatively brief sensitivity period with the implication that even good parenting that is provided after that watershed is too late. (4) Bowlby drew parallels between the development of attachments and imprinting. It became apparent that there were more differences than similarities and this comparison was dropped later on and is no longer seen as helpful by most writers on attachment.

These features refer to 'maternal deprivation'. Therefore there can be no dispute regarding the meaning of the work cited.

The purpose of this list at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on Rutter is to clarify the confusion made by Fainites barley and many others. It highlights the salient differences between the discredited theory of 'maternal deprivation' and the 'attachment theory'. To claim that it shows 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory' would not be accurate because there have been many significant developments in 'Attachment Theory' before Bowlby, at the same time as Bowlby, and after Bowlby. It is also therefore neither exhaustive or definitive. Fainites barley title also suggests that these 'developments' were positive when those cited were major 'flaws' in Bowlby's original theory. It is also inappropriate because it may lead the reader to believe that these components of 'maternal deprivation' formed part of mainstream Child Psychology when Bowlby's theory was disputed even from the beginning.

Bowlby made a considerable contribution to our ideas about 'attachment' but to take the position that he was the 'author' of the theory as Fainites barley argues is untenable.

Fainites barley argument

In the light of my statement above on this matter Fainites|barley has made another statement which I have asked him or her to transfer to this page.KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The request for 3PO raised by me on the identical issue on John Bowlby already starts on the John Bowlby talkpage (where you made no comment) and then continues on Kingsley Millers talkpage . There is no necessity to confuse matters by raising a request about an identical issue on the same source and then copying chunks of the existing discussion (out of order and not containing what i actually say about the source) on to this page in order to pretend there is discussion going on on this page. Talkpages should remain as a record of who said what when and not be retrospectively refactored or have slanted headings added or have selected pieces from other talkpages added to make it look as if discussion is going on. Accordingly I have removed your copy of my edit copied from a different page. Please stop playing games. Fainites barley 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fainites|barley reply

I have removed two more edits of mine copied here by Kingsley as he seems incapable of not messing about with other peoples talkpage posts. Enough already! This is getting boring. I'm sure the 3PO person can work it out. Fainites barley 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse others of what you are guilty yourself
PLEASE DEAL WITH THIS DISPUTE AS STATED ORIGINALLY.

This was my original query which I am seeking resolution which I describe to both administrators on my TALK page and you said you were happy to deal with.

I have changed the disputed page on Michael Rutter to the original title "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory" as it was correctly cited in the first place. This is a very importnat change as it reinforces the fact they are not the same thing ie mothers are not naturally the best carers for small children.

I should be very grateful if you could tell me what I should do if Fainites changes it back again? (Please note this is not a matter of consensus but a simple case of right and wrong).

I also copied this query onto the TALK page of both administrators. I shall contact both to confirm these details.

Please do not accuse others of what you are guilty yourself.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Okay. Here is my third opinion on this. As best as I can tell, the question is whether or not the header should be "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory" or "Significant developments in Attachment Theory". My opinion on this is that neither should be used, because the section shouldn't even exist! First off, the section is entirely unencyclopedic. It looks like you just copied it out of a book, and if you didn't, then it's entirely original research and should be deleted. Book adaptations shouldn't be included here. The section explains nothing about Michael Rutter. If you want to include that text, I suggest you clean it up and turn it into something that's more encyclopedic sounding. There. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I congratulate you on a terrific job. I can understand what you are saying and think what you have written is highly commendable. Can you point me to somebody who can help with your suggestion?


 * The speed and efficiency with which you have dealt with dispute does you great credit.


 * Once again very well done.


 * KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can help with my suggestion. It's very simple: remove the section. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the third opinion. Attachment isn't even Rutters main area anyway. He's done hugely impotant work in other areas which could be emphasised more. Fainites barley 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OR and fact tags
I've added a whole bunch of fact tags to this page. This edit has just added a great deal of original research to this page, which is unacceptable. Here are some examples: You cannot add sentences like that without references. Wikipedia is not a place for original research; everything in Wiki articles needs to be verifiable by secondary sources. I've got half a mind to revert the addition altogether. Thoughts? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Although there was a great deal of professional disquiet at the time reflected in the World Health Organisation (WHO) publication 'The Deprivation of Maternal Care. A Reassessment of its effects' it is Rutter who is generally credited with undermining this theory"
 * "It also came to be appreciated that social development was affected by later as well as earlier relationships."
 * "It became apparent that there were more differences than similarities and this comparison was dropped later on and is no longer seen as helpful by most writers on attachment."


 * All your fact tags have been removed. Fainites barley 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that. But Kingsley is adding stuff, so I'll give him some time to do that before I take another look at the page. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Before messing with the page please specify which areas you are unhappy with.

Many thanks KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the citations simply make the same errors as the previous version - ie confusing changes in attachment theory with criticism of maternal deprivation. Secondly, you credit this to Rutter whereas Rutter in 1995 is writing a 'retrospect and prospect' which is a source for what the state of affairs is but it cannot be taken as the primary source for what he is saying as if it were all Rutters idea or Rutters research. The way you've written it makes it look as if it is Rutters 1995 paper itself which undermined maternal deprivation which is absurd, or was the one who first here says what the changes in attachment theory are which is equally absurd. Thirdly I also don't see a secondary source saying Rutter is credited with undermining maternal deprivation. You've cited that to Rutter himself. Where does he say words to the effect of 'I've undermined maternal deprivation'? Maternal deprivation was controversial from day one, back in 1951 when Rutter was 18. Fainites barley 22:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The citations don't help the text itself, which is problematic. If you'd like, Kingsley, we can have another outsider take a look at this to see whether or not it's OR. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't understand the criticisms.

The piece is well written. As the 'third party' can you list the errors and I will deal with them one by one. If I am unable to do so then we can call in a third party. I am sorry I do not believe Fainites|barley is an authority in this matter. If I am unable to deal with the criticisms then we can get an outsider.

Bowlby called Rutter his 'erstwhile critic'. If we cannot rely on his account we are all in trouble!

Many thanks

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody here is claiming to be an authority. It is not a question of style. It is that the cites don't support the text and the interpretation put on them is OR. Rutter also says many very complementary things about Bowlby and the development of attachment theory. Being a critic doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the developments in attachment theory that you see as Rutters attack on Bowlby/Maternal deprivation actually were developments explored by Bowlby himself as more research results came in. Two of the developments in attachment theory that Rutter sets out in 1995 he attributes to "Bowlby (1988)". I have the texts that Kingsley is referring to as does JeanMercer but Kingsley has so far taken the view that any disagreement with his position must of necessity be bad faith. See the Maternal deprivation talkpage. If you can find a knowledgeable third party then hooray. Fainites barley 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything in the following paragraph is OR:


 * What you have there is an essay of sorts. It has nothing to do with Rutter specifically; rather, it's an essay-like discussion of Bowlby's flaws. Kingsley, I'd also remind you of tendentious editing - you're riding dangerously close to it. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of this discussion. I've opened a request over at WP:NORN. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
My suggestion is that we revert the page back to this version. I believe it's the best version we've seen thus far. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What does OR mean? KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Own Research. Look at WP:OR.


 * On Hellos suggestion - looks fine to me. Then some stuff about Rutters work on the nature/nurture - genes/environment stuff which is one of his big areas. Anyway - gripping as this is - we UK editors should have been in bed hours ago. Fainites barley 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How did Rutter make his reputation?


 * Was it by the genes/environment stuff? KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it was not. STUPID QUESTION!


 * Then how did he make his reputation?


 * 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs)

Kingsly it does Rutter no favours to try and squeeze both his and Bowlby's contributions anachronistically into your modern political battle. There was no Fathers Rights movement demanding equal dibs at nappy changing in 1951. The minimal mention of fathers in the 1951 report is a reflection of the times and the lack of research available. Minimal mention of fathers was only one area of controversy and not the biggest. There is a paper on fathers in the 1962 book. Bowlby makes it plain in the 1969 publication of Attachment, the first volume of the trilogy, that attachment is neither confined to or exclusive to mothers and gives examples where fathers are primary attachment figures. The key-note of Rutters 1972 book is not the amazing discovery, as you seem to think that fathers can look after children too. That was known. But again - there was no fathers rights movement then either. Fathers Rights is a recent, post-feminist phenomenon arising as a result of percieved unfairness in family justice systems making decisions about children and money on separation. If you look at the 1962 paper you will see it is abut the importance of fathers as traditional fathers anyway - not as primary carers of infants as it was understood at the time. Attachment theory as originated by Bowlby, is not gender specific (despite the fact that most of the research related to Mothers because thats who was mostly caring for children at the time) and people who actually learns about it and use it practically in the professions do not think it is. Common beliefs in the relationship, or even mystical bond between Mother and Infant are not derived from attachment theory. They are as old as the hills. Attachment only starts after about 7 months anyway and so is irrelevent to views/ research and theories about the period before then. That's a whole different topic. Fainites barley 07:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fainites,

I have made this point to the third party and I hope it makes sense to you. (Please see the Third Party TalkPage) Your reference that 'attachment' is not one of Rutter's specialisms is mind boggling. He is one of the internationally acknowledged leading experts on the subject. As an interested party in 'attachment' I also find your reference that his biography should contain some of his "work on the nature / nurture - genes / environment stuff which is one of his big areas" incredible. The opposite to attachment is 'deprivation' and both Bowlby and Rutter are concerned with the pathology of attachment.

A leading figure in 'attachment' is still Rutter. He is continually looking at ways of pushing forward the boundaries of the subject. Various ways in which he has explored attachment are for example; by examining the 'nature / nurture' debate and looking at the 'genes / environment stuff', as you call it. Breakthroughs in new technologies, for example regarding DNA, may have an impact on discovering how attachment works. An area which is currently under review is the importance of 'resilience' to children and in particular whether it is the challenging experiences they give children that promotes development with implications for 'attachment'. The things you mention are not another 'big area', they are part of the big area we are discussing here.

Rutter is a child psychiatrist. He has identified the ways in which Bowlby was wrong. These should not be left out because they form the essence of his work in helping the lives of children. Rutter's work is that he helped children by identifying the ways in which the theory of 'maternal deprivation' harmed children. This is how he made his reputation. Now you are suggesting they should be left out! You are seeking to turn an encyclopedia into a list of meaningless facts.

It is for these reasons it is extremely important that the biography of Rutter should be clear about the differences between 'maternal deprivation' and the attachment theory and I have taken on board your confusion. Therefore I have had a look at the present Wikipedia page on 'attachment theory' and I have found at least one mistake which may have contributed. Under the heading of 'Tenets of attachment theory' it says the following;-

Monotropy: Early steps in attachment take place most easily if the infant has one caregiver, or the occasional care of a small number of other people.

But this was a phrase used by Bowlby to describe 'maternal deprivation'. It has been abandoned. It is not one of the 'Tenets of attachment theory'. It should not be on the page about 'attachment theory' and gives the impression that they are the same thing!

Another confusion is caused on the page on 'Attachment theory' is the phrase 'Bowlby's approach'. Attachment theory should be a neutral concept and depending on the reader this reference may suggest that the version of 'attachment theory' advocated by Wikipedia is the same as 'maternal deprivation'.

Perhaps you have adopted the approach to 'attachment' advocated in this page and you think that attributes of 'maternal deprivation' are the same as tenets of the 'attachment theory'. Your proper recourse is to alter the page on 'attachment theory' not to criticize the page on Rutter for what you perceive as its deficiencies. It is the page on 'attachment theory' which is wrong not the page on Rutter.

Whilst there are people who, for example, still believe 'monotropy' is a tenet of attachment theory I think my biography of Rutter should stand. In fact I am minded to add the original list which was the bone of contention to make sure that the differences between the two concepts are clearly appreciated - I hope I am making this point clear enough. The page on 'attachment theory' reinforces the need to include such a list.

I also feel that your criticism regarding the ideas on the page being original research (OR) is a red herring. There is nothing in this biography which is either 'tendentious' or for that matter 'contentious' and I should be grateful if you would e-mail the relevant article to the 'third party' so that he can be confident is not having the wool pulled over his eyes.

I should be grateful if the 'third party' could look at the page on the 'attachment theory' and in particular the reference to 'monotropy' and give his view.

In the meantime I should also be grateful if you could clarify whether you still believe Bowlby to be the 'author' of the 'attachment theory'?

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!)

I am sorry for the inconvenience but I think it is important that you have a copy of the Rutter article we are discussing and I have asked Fainites to e-mail you with a copy.

Also I should be grateful if you would take a look at 'monotropy' described above as I believe it is relevant. (Link to attachment theory page)

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One of my efforts has been to avoid the confusion between maternal deprivation and attachment theory. Your list sets out developments in attachment theory between the publication of attachment theory and the date of Rutters paper, not differences between attachment theory and maternal deprivation as you claim. In any event these developments are not 'discoveries' of Rutter. Rutter attributes two of them to Bowlby. Rutter is writing an update on the history, current state and areas for more research of attachment theory (which he attributes to Bowlby).

The fact that various websites you find on the net also confuse maternal deprivation and attachment theory doesn't make it right. You need to look at the primary and notable secondary sources. If you can find mention of monotropy or imprinting or anything to do with ethology or evolutionary adaptiveness in "Maternal Care and Mental Health" (1951) then please give me the page numbers because I must have missed them in my copy. You seem determined to confine Bowlby to maternal deprivation and then attribute attachment theory to others as if attachment theory arose in opposition to Bowlby rather than originating with him. Of course its developed further with research. That is the way science works. Maternal deprivation has not stood the test of time. Attachment theory has but continues to change and develop as more research is done. Of course the area has broadened and will continue to do so. that is not what you put in articles though. What you repeatedly put in articles is a misrepresentation of attachment theory as originated by Bowlby in apparent confusion as to the distinction between maternal deprivation as set out in WHO, what Bowlby did to develop a theory of attachment therefter because there wasn't one he found adequate, the subsequent development of attachment theory by Bowlby, the explosion of research that followed thereafter and its subsequent development devleopment onwards by many researchers and theorists in the field.

I think your problem is that because you believe (wrongly) that Bowlby's attachment theory said it was mothers only, you have determined to write him out of attachment theory in favour of your hero Rutter who you believe championed the cause of fathers. I did however, set out on the maternal deprivation page some passages from Bowlby's first volume showing clearly that attachment theory, as formulated by him, was not gender specific.

I did not say attachment was not one of Rutters specialisms. I said it was not his main area. I suppose if you view absolutely everything to do with infants developmetn as part of attachment you could take that view. However, you are no doubt aware of the activities of the English team of which he was part that conducted a series of studies on Romanian orphans on the effects of deprivation and privation.

My objection was to the way the page as written by you a) confuses attachment theory and maternal deprivation, b) implies your version of maternal/attachment theory from Bowlby applies only to Mothers when this is your version, not Bowlby's, c) that the main criticism of Bowlby's work was in relation to it saying it only applied to mothers not fathers when there were more far reaching objections to maternal deprivation than that and d) that it was Rutter who made this great discovery that fathers could attach to childen to when in fact it is plain from Bowlby's attachment theory as published in 1969 that that is the case anyway. and e) that it is full of OR that is POV with a particular agenda and finallyf) your continued assumption, shown by phrases like 'pull the wool over your eyes' that anyone who disagrees with you must be acting in bad faith - an allegation with which you got nowhere through sveral complaints and appeals.

Fainites barley 11:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fainites3
1.For the benefit of the third party are you saying that 'monotropy' is not part of Bowlby theory of 'maternal deprivation'?

2.Are you saying that it is a 'tenet' of the attachment theory?

3.Do you still say Bowlby is the 'author' of the 'attachment theory?

many thanks,

kip

 Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!)

I should still be grateful if you could obtain a copy of the Rutter article for the reasons I have set out beforehand.

Also, a small query. Did you remove the word 'Professor' from the introduction on the Wik page? It keeps changing!

KingsleyMiller (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1. There is no mention of monotropy in 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' wherein Bowlby propounds maternal deprivation that I can find. As has been stated before a great deal of controversy and research followed that publication. I believe the term first appears in his 1958 paper - one of the three papers that are generally seen as presenting the first basics of 'attachment theory' (see Bretherton). It may be that confusion arises because Bowlby was attempting to formulate the theory that maternal deprivation lacked whereas others where still going on about maternal deprivation as such. He repeats the term in Vol. 1 of 'Attachment' in 1969. The basis of it is that a child has a bias to attach himself especially to one figure and he thought it merited a special term. If you say I'm wrong in this (and we are all fallible) please give the citations you say show where monotropy was used to describe a feature of maternal deprivation.

2. Monotropy was described in the trilogy and forms part of attachment theory as stated at that time. He says "almost from the first many children have more than one figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of a child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother." p304. In the research the commonest primary figure was the mother and the commonest subsidiary figures were father and older siblings. He then gives several examples of such primary attachments being to figures other than the mother, such as the father or an older sibling. Monotropy, in the sense of that primary attachment being qualitively different is no longer seen as part of attachment theory by all in the field - the theory having moved on with research. This is made clear in many places including in the Rutter paper although he says 'a high degree of selectivity has been confirmed'. A distinction needs to made here about whether the relationship is qualitively different or quantitively different if you see what I mean. Bowlby 1988 says "there is abundant evidence that almost every child habitually prefers one person, usually his mother figure, to whom to go when distressed but that, in her absence, he will make do with someone else, preferably someone whom he knows well. On these occasions most children show a clear hierarchy or preference......Thus whilst attachment behaviour may in differing circumstances be shown to a variety of individuals, an enduring attachment, or attachment bond, is confined to very few" p28.

3. perhaps "author" is not the right word - its not a novel. He is the author of "Attachment and Loss" which contains attachment theory which he formulated or originated. How about that? "Originator" or "formulator" is probably better. I set out on the John Bowlby talkpage a range of mainstream sources that happened to be to hand to this effect when you raised this last time.Fainites barley 13:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done.
Okay, I'm done editing this page. I'm at the end of my rope with the constant barrage of notes and comments left here, my talk page, and everywhere else. I don't have the patience or the desire to read these long, drawn-out posts that are off-topic. The fact is that the big paragraph on this page is original research and needs to go. Kingsley is being too WP:TENDentious and stubborn to get anything done, so I won't be a part of it. When you're ready to get serious about Wikipedia policy and how it applies to this page, let me know. Until then, I'll find more productive editors to work with. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I think this is a case of a little bit of knowledge doing more harm than good. There is no reason for the TAG. The page is well researched and referenced.

On the other hand Fainties has made statements that are plainly wrong and damaging (See above). For example there is a citation in the biography for 'monotropy' and shows a fundamental error.

Therefore I have asked for further qualified help below as you suggested in the page on Psychology. Nevertheless thank you for your efforts.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Further clarification needed

 * 1) Talk:Michael Rutter Is John Bowlby the 'originator' or formulator' or 'author' of the 'attachment theory'. Or is he the 'originator' or 'formulator' or 'author' of the theory of 'maternal deprivation'? (I should be grateful for a third party that is aware of Michael Rutter beforehand and not just the work of John Bowlby) The 'attachment theory' page relies on Bowlby's work and help would go a long way to sorting that page out also.  KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Talk:Michael Rutter Request removal of tags from page on Michael Rutter. The example quoted illustrates how he made his reputation and some would say his finest achievement in Child Psychology. It is not original research (OR) which was the reason for the tag and Fainties has a copy of the disputed research. (I should be grateful for a third party that is aware of Michael Rutter beforehand and not just the work of John Bowlby).  KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Talk:Michael Rutter Is the concept of 'monotropy' a 'tenet of the attachment theory' or a discredited feature of the theory of 'maternal deprivation?  (I should be grateful for a third party that is aware of Michael Rutter beforehand and not just the work of John Bowlby). KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the TAG from discussion 2. There is no basis for this tag.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as info for whoever else picks up this 3O: good luck. As you can see above, this is a really in-depth conversation and may require some technical knowledge on the subject. I still think that the middle paragraph is OR, but I'm withdrawing from the conversation. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying the article is original research when it is not? Surely it would be better to look at the article before making a decision?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This was added to the 3O page: "(1)Is John Bowlby the 'originator' or formulator' or 'author' of the 'attachment theory'. Or is he the 'originator' or 'formulator' or 'author' of the theory of 'maternal deprivation'? (I should be grateful for a third party that is aware of Michael Rutter beforehand and not just the work of John Bowlby) The 'attachment theory' page relies on Bowlby's work and help would go a long way to sorting that page out also. (2)Is the concept of 'monotropy' a 'tenet of the attachment theory' or a discredited feature of the theory of 'maternal deprivation?". &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong


 * 1) Talk:Michael Rutter. Disagreement about content and possible OR. 08:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this dispute now with you? KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to stay WP:COOL here, but you keep pushing it. If the only reason you listed this page on 3O is to settle something between you and me, then you can remove it, and I'll leave the issue alone. I don't have the time or the patience to deal with your harassment. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well somebody needs to deal with it HA. Fainites barley 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was stated on my talk page that "Not even the other side disputes this!" - 'this' being the potential for OR. Assuming you're the "other side," are you saying that you disagree with that? statement, and that you are in fact disputing it? Let's see what another outsider says. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what KM is referring to - but yes I think the passage is OR and I also think KM is not representing a source correctly in relation to the passage from the '95 Rutter paper. I'm not sure KM understands what OR means though.Fainites barley 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fainites, Are you now claiming the article in question is original research (OR)?
I have got a HARD COPY here but it is in bad condition, even so I can see it is not OR. If you are saying that it is OR then could you e-mail a copy to the THIRD PARTY and if possible myself so we can move the discussion forward? Also can you replace the tags on the biography page indicating the disputed sections?

As far as your postings here are concerned the topic has moved onto discuss the following;-


 * 1) Talk:Michael Rutter Is John Bowlby the 'originator' or formulator' or 'author' of the 'attachment theory'. Or is he the 'originator' or 'formulator' or 'author' of the theory of 'maternal deprivation'? (I should be grateful for a third party that is aware of Michael Rutter beforehand and not just the work of John Bowlby) The 'attachment theory' page relies on Bowlby's work and help would go a long way to sorting that page out also.
 * 2) Talk:Michael Rutter Is the concept of 'monotropy' a 'tenet of the attachment theory' or a discredited feature of the theory of 'maternal deprivation?  (I should be grateful for a third party that is aware of Michael Rutter beforehand and not just the work of John Bowlby).

I can not see anything wrong with these postings as they relate specifically to the topics under discussion?

HelloAnnyong

It is pointless getting another THIRD PARTY opinion on a THIRD PARTY opinion. That would make it a FOURTH PARTY opinion when we already have a copy of the article.

Please let us know if you want to remain involved? KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am happy to e-mail the paper to a third party KM. I see no point in e-mailing it to you as you say you have it. You have also not given me the assurances I asked for. I would also advise you to read WP:OR as there's more to the issue of OR than just whether Rutters sentence construction is clear. Its not Rutters article that's OR - its your edits. It doesn't mean anybody's accusing you of inventing the paper! OR is where you say things like 'it was Rutter that was able to point to several flaws....' etc. Even if the paper was referring to MD rather than AT, who says this with reference to this paper? Its not what Rutter says. Do you see the difference? A correct citation would be to say "There have been four main changes over the years....then list them, then ref Rutters paper, in the relevent article. OR is where you've put your own spin or interpretation on it or here, where you use it to make your point about Rutters attitude to Bowlby by adding your view of what Rutter was saying about Bowlby or his theories, or imply this was just Rutter when in fact he cites Bowlby for two of the developments. You need a secondary source on Rutters contribution.Fainites barley 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted a chunk of the Rutter paper and some sources for saying Bowlby was the originator of attachment theory on the John Bowlby page when you last raised this issue. I'm not typing it all out again. Fainites barley 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong1,

Before we progress please tell us whether you want to remain involved?

Are you 'done' or do you intend to chip in?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fainites,

The work is already correctly referenced in the way you suggest, eg monotropy, Bowlby's work. Please check again.

Please can you list A,B,C exactly what you are saying is OR and why?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. I've explained myself many times. Not going to keep repeating it. Am away 'til Monday 14th.Fainites barley 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree either. Kingsley, you're being both tendentious and unwilling to follow WP:CONSENSUS. Both Fainites and I are in agreement here; you're the odd man out. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the original WHO publication says nothing about monotropy, or about ethology for that matter. I think we may need to look to Robert Hinde for the secondary source of that concept, which Bowlby later brought into attachment theory. But why should this particular argument be played out on the Rutter page? Rutter has contributed in a variety of ways to the understanding of early development, particularly by a multidisciplinary approach that integrates biological and experiential factors in a way few other modern authors have been able to do. He has managed the extensive epidemiological work on the Romanian orphan groups, providing empirical answers to many questions about the impact of early relationships. He has focused on a wide range of concerns about the impact of poor early care, including the development of speech and cognition-- he should not be presented as interested only in attachment theory. It's a great mistake to present this important voice as speaking only to criticize Bowlby. Can someone contribute to a more complete description of Rutter's important work? Jean Mercer (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can ascertain from Kingsleys edits, he seems to think that because Rutter lists the 4 developments in attachment theory in his 1995 paper that he is in fact responsible for these 4 developments which in some way destroys Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation - but I'm not sure I really understand the argument. Fainites barley 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Response from Noticeboard Fainites barley 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, great. We now have three people who have come to the conclusion that the middle paragraph is OR, and that it needs to be removed. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its four. You, me, Vassanya and JeanMercer. Fainites barley 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the OR and replaced it with a sourced statement on Rutters contribution from Holmes. I've also added a piece about the ERAST - surely one of his most notable contributions. I'll add a source later. Fainites barley 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * it still needs a paragraph on his contribution in the whole area of of breaking down and teasing out mechanisms and outcomes in a rigorous, multi-disciplinary and scientific way.Fainites barley 08:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses
Vassyana

Thank you for this kind intervention.

However there are 2 mistakes in your comment.

Firstly regarding inappropriate synthesis. The section you refer to quotes from the original work. The references you believe are used to 'synthesis' are in fact additional secondary sources to substantiate the article. This only goes to reinforce the value of what Rutter is stating in the first place not as you suggest to make unwarranted statements. (Please ask Fanities for a copy of the article).

Secondly, you say

The same sentence displays further OR concerns, by pointing to a "great deal of professional disquiet at the time" while only citing Rutter's paper (rather than a source making the claim there was a "great deal of professional disquiet at the time").

But the work cited is not Rutter's. 'The Deprivation of Maternal Care; A Reassessment of its effects' was published by the WHO and includes articles from a number of respected experts in the field sharing their professional disquiet about Bowlby's work. I think you may have confused the two?

Bowlby described Rutter as his 'erstwhile critic' and it is for his work 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed' that some would say is his major achievement. (I shall try to find some sources for this). Far from supporting the omission of the relevant paragraph your intervention has shown the reason it should remain.

Further I do not feel the piece is OR at all. I feel that it is because Rutter dares to criticise Bowlby that the objection has been lodged.

For example, I have produced a new page on Wikipedia called monotropy in which I outline the concerns about this particular concept. Both Fanitites and Jean Mercer seem to be oblivious to the fact that 'monotropy' is a key feature of 'maternal deprivation'. Instead they describe it as a 'tenet' of the attachment theory.

If you are familiar with this aspect of Child Psychology you will know this is a fundamental error.

I hope you will take the time and trouble to see the new page I have produced and compare it with the page on the attachment theory.

Once again thank you for your kind intervention.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I hope you already know the idea of 'monotropy' has long since been abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re above comment;

The ‘Maudsley approach’

Michael Rutter’s book Maternal Deprivation Reassessed (Rutter, 1972) had an enormous impact on me. It is a model of a critical review. A 150-page tour de force of systematic and rigorous examination, it redefines a key research area. Further, numerous hypotheses are proposed, and are in turn tested for inconsistencies against the evidence available (around 450 publications). In this respect, the approach would no doubt have met with Popper’s approval.

The book also represents the ‘Maudsley approach’ at its finest. Aubrey Lewis in an interview once stated that ‘Maudsley psychiatry’ is ‘concerned with empirical clinical methods strengthened by the results of research, which then enable theory to be formulated and eventually applied to practice... [the approach] is a balanced one, avoiding the extremes of enthusiasm and bold claims, but not settling down into a stagnant acceptance of things as they are’. Many might see Rutter’s conclusion, that both the ‘maternal’ and the ‘deprivation’ in the term ‘maternal deprivation’ are misleading, as typically ‘Maudsley’. However, the dissection of the various ways in which bonds between a child and a range of other people can be disrupted or distorted, in a range of contexts, and with a variety of outcomes to which subsequent events contribute, marks a major advance in thinking. On re-reading this book, I was struck by the fertility of the hypotheses; many adumbrate themes central to research in developmental psychiatry today, for example, the study of individual differences, or gene–environment correlations as well as interactions. Reductionism does not work well in the study of development, but this book shows that scientific rigour need not therefore suffer. KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana,

In the biography I state,

The British Journal of Psychiatry credits him with a number of "breakthroughs"[2] in these areas and Professor Sir Michael Rutter is also recognized as contributing centrally to the establishment of child psychiatry as a medical and biopsychosocial specialty with a solid scientific base[3].

To anybody who is familiar with Rutter's work they will know that this is also an oblique reference to Bowlby. Many of Bowlby's ideas appeared attractive but had no scientific base. In the biography I allude to this reference by using 'maternal deprivation' as the case study to illustrate the point. Hope this helps.KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't agree with all this but lets concentrate on the issue of OR. Fainites barley 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of OR
In respect of paras 3 and 4 of the current version, I have found a secondary source that comments on Rutter contribution to maternal deprivation. I would propose the following (which is a summary of what holmes says):
 * Rutter made a significant contribution to the controversial issue of Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis. His 1981 monograph and other papers (refs) comprise the definitive empirical evaluation and update of Bowlby's early work on maternal deprivation. Rutter amassed further evidence and addressed the many different underlying social and psychological mechanisms. Rutter showed that Bowlby was only partially right and often for the wrong reasons. Rutter highlighted the other forms of deprivation found in institutional care, the complexity of separation distress and suggested that anti-social behaviour was not linked to maternal deprivation as such but to family discord. The importance of these refinements of the maternal deprivation hypothesis was to reposition it as a "vulnerability factor" rather than a causative agent, with a number of varied influences determining which path a child will take. ( ref Jeremy Holmes in John Bowlby & Attachment Theory.

This would then lead onto a better description of Rutters work as described by Jean above.Fainites barley 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re 1995 paper
I've had a response from User:Ddstretch to whom I e-mailed the paper following a request on the Sources noticeboard. The summary - confirmed on my talkpage is:
 * "Right - so - the 'five key ways' and the 'four elements' in the Rutter 1995 paper refer to attachment theory by reference to the trilogy - but as attachment theory is the attempt to formulate a theoretical base for the ideas put forward in maternal deprivation, its a distinction without a difference as science continually develops with research anyway so what difference does it make? I think thats a summary."

Fainites barley 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Edit
This latest update is much better but still has problems.

1.It repeats itself. In one paragraph it talks about 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed' but goes on  to say in another paragraph,

"Michael Rutter made a significant contribution to the controversial issue of Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis. His 1981 monograph[4] and other papers (Rutter 1972; Rutter 1979) comprise the definitive empirical evaluation and update of Bowlby's early work on maternal deprivation."

It was his earlier work that profoundly affected the psychological World and to show what I mean I include a number of references below.

ALSO;

2.A crucial factor about Bowlby's theory, as the name suggests, is that it says 'maternal'. In any evaluation of this theory the point needs to be made very clearly that 'fathers' can be just as important to even small children. The gender of the parent makes absolutely no difference and I have linked the page to 'monotropy' in which I have quoted Rutter verbatim to clarify this point.

3.It also has a reference to 'The English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team' but no information. This is an example of his work on 'attachment'. If anybody else wants to fill in details but to leave the reference floating is not right.

4."The importance of these refinements of the maternal deprivation hypothesis was to reposition it as a "vulnerability factor" rather than a causative agent, with a number of varied influences determining which path a child will take.[6]" should be left out as it is a debateable point. Most would say that Bowlby's work simply reinforced a stereotype whereas Rutter challenged it and this makes him a 'great' man.

5.Editing this page it is best not to be too specific about his exact achievements because there are so many.

NB Holmes is an expert on Bowlby not Rutter.

An Introduction to Child Development G C Davenport, Unwin Hyman, 1988.

5 So is Bowlby right?

In 1956 John Bowlby was beginning to realise that some of his earlier claims may have been rather too strongly stated. In an article called "The Effects of Mother-Child Separation" in the British Journal of Medical Psychology he said that some of the early work on the effects of separation (eg Goldfarb, Spitz etc) sometimes tended to exaggerate. Since the 1970s, quite a lot of doubt has been cast on some of Bowlby's views of the mother and her child.

Alan and Ann Clarke have consistently disagreed with the idea that the first few years in a child's life are as important as Bowlby and others claim. Their objections may be summarised in four points.

1 The Clarke's claim that imprinting probably doesn't exist in all animals, so why should anything like it exist in humans? Quoting evidence from ethology and experiments on goslings, ducklings and other animals is irrelevant to a discussion on human parent/child relationships, they claim. 2 Children who haven't had adequate bonding in early life, can recover later [eg the twins reported by Jarmila Koluchova, the Bulldogs Bank children and many orphanage-reared children who were adopted later in life). 3 Some children have suffered temporary deprivation but show no ill effects later (such as Thomas and many of the children in Michael Rutter's study). 4 Babies don't just need mothers, but can attach to several people.

John Bowlby insisted that (a) the early years are most important for healthy development, and (b) that the mother (or a substitute mother) is crucially important in those years. The Clarkes dispute both these statements. They say "Early experience ... is no more than a link in the developmental chain, shaping behaviour less and less powerfully as age increases."

In any field of enquiry people will put forward ideas that seem to fit the facts. These ideas will find some support, and some criticism. For as long as John Bowlby's explanations were thought to be convincing his influence was great. His claims focused attention on the mother child bond probably more than anyone else before him him. When criticisms of any theory, and the appearance of alternative explanations outweighs the earlier beliefs, so new insights are gained. Whilst all of Bowlby's claims may not be wholly correct, developmentalists owe him a great deal for inspiring so much debate and research into how children's emotions grow.

Child Development: a first course Kathy Sylva & Ingrid Lunt Basil Blackwell 1985

Summing up

Bits of evidence, and some rather grand theories, have been discussed for the light they shed on the origins of human love.

Bowlby's theory, focusing on the biological need on the part of both mother and child to remain close together, stresses a bond to one unique female. Bowlby saw this bond as a behavioural adaptation to the dangers from predation faced by our ancestors in the distant evolutionary past. Although some studies appear to support this theory, the majority of research shows it to be simplistic and inadequate. The human baby does not bond to its mother with an irreversibility akin to animal imprinting. Luckily, babies are flexible and resilient creatures, capable of emotional ties to several adults - and in some cases - to other children. Luckily, too, the human mother is not biologically driven to be with her baby at all times. Many mothers arrange part-time substitute care so that they ran go out to work. There is no scientific evidence that they doom their children to the developmental anomalies predicted by Bowlby.

Higher Education: Don's delight Dr Raj Persaud on Maternal Deprivation Reassessed -the book that changed his life

The Guardian (Manchester); Jan 21, 1997; DR RAJ PERSAUD; p. 002

Full Text: (Copyright Guardian Newspapers, Limited Jan 21,1997)

THE book which had the most profound impact on all our lives is often a publication we may not even be aware of - for it must be the literature which our parents consumed as we grew up - anxiously seeking guidance on how to bring up sane children.

The child psychologist your parents religiously followed in print has, decades later, been proved entirely wrong! Even if our parents did not read popular tomes such as John Bowlby's 'Can I leave my baby?', published in 1958, this eminent British psychoanalyst shaped the way a generation of parents related to their offspring.

He was interpreted as insisting that continuity and closeness of maternal care were the only certain ways of preventing adolescent and adult psychological disturbance. The inevitable conclusion was that mothers should not go out to work. All mothers who wanted a career or a life outside of childcare worried about comments like Bowlby's: 'Mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.' Then came the book which argued the primary care-giver need not be the mother, nor were her absences always hazardous - Maternal Deprivation Reassessed, published in 1972 by Sir Michael Rutter, Professor of Child Psychiatry at London University's Institute of Psychiatry. It is difficult for us to recall, before Rutter's book, what a struggle it was for women to break free from the notion that spending some time away from their children inevitably resulted in 'deprivation'.

My mother left us for a year to finish her PhD in Britain, when my brother and I were both under 10. It is Rutter's book which ensured she never felt guilty for temporarily leaving us, and which ensures that, today, my wife continues to pursue her career as an eye-surgeon, as well as having children. By challenging what we believe constitutes good parenting. Maternal Deprivation Reassessed has changed not just my life, but all our lives.

Dr Raj Persaud is consultant psychiatrist at The Maudsley Postgraduate Psychiatric Teaching Hospital, University of London.

To order any book mentioned in Guardian Education, call 0500 600102

Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology Hugh Coolican Hodder & Stoughton 1998

In the field: A test of maternal deprivation. Bowlby (1951) proposed a controversial theory that young infants have a natural (that is, biological or innate) tendency to form a special attachment with just one person usually the mother, different in kind and quality from any other,

‘Personal, Social and Emotional Development of Children’ Peter Barnes (ed) Blackwell in association with the Open University, 1997.

ED209 Child Development CHILD CARE AND ATTACHMENT (pages 2-12) by Helen Cowie

There have been many criticisms of the maternal deprivation hypothesis in the years since Bowlby first proposed it and as a result it has become largely discredited (though this does not discredit attachment theory in general).

Nevertheless, policy issues have continued to be influenced by this early work and versions of the maternal deprivation hypothesis are regularly presented in the media and by politicians to justify certain approaches to child care.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

self-published tag
For all those following this page I have added the above tag to the page on 'Attachment Theory'. This is because monotropy is described as a 'tenet' of the attachment theory and Jean Mercer is cited.

Monotropy is a feature of 'Maternal deprivation' NOT 'attachment theory'.

Many thanksKingsleyMiller (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why say "great edit" when in fact you've removed most of it including all the citations?
 * Well done for finding some sources. however, you have yet to provide a notable citation for the claim you make above. I have already provided citations to the effect that monotropy is plainly a feature of attachment theory and that the word was first used in the 1958 paper and explained in the 1969 trilogy (from bowlby himself). In any event - what is its relevence to a biography of Rutter? Please provide good sources (not web blogs) for your claims that a)monotropy is a feature of maternal deprivation and b) it is not a feature of attachment theory. (An alternative approach for a) would be to find a good source that explains whether monotropy is considered the same as a central tenet of maternal deprivation even though the word wasn't used.)
 * You also removed properly cited edits from this page in relation to Rutters contributions on maternal deprivation and left other material uncited by removing references.
 * Its not a good reason to remove Holmes 'because he's an expert on Bowlby, not Rutter' when he's writing about Rutters contributions to Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation. Holmes explains quite carefully one of the things rutter is famous for - his scientific and analytical approach.
 * You can't use a passage from Holmes, alter a bit of it to suit a different POV and then not attribute it to Holmes! Its plagiarism and NPOV.
 * Please remember all edits should be cited and from notable sources.
 * the Romanian stuff is definitely not just about attachment.
 * Who says Bowlby simply reinforced a stereotype? For example, there are notable sources that say Bowlby was considered innovative, revolutionary and challenging. He was ostracised by the psychoanalysts and had to go it alone. There are notable sources who effectively say because he stepped outside the boundaries he created a new paradigm. Somebody somewhere said he practically invented the field of evolutionary psychology. This is mostly in relation to attachment heory rather than maternal deprivation as such. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevent. These are sourced. Do you have any notable sources that say Bowlby simply reinforced stereotypes? Feminist commentators certainly objected to the 'biology as destiny' approach to women. If so both views can go in - but what cannot be done is to exclude sourced material and add unsourced material in order to make the article promote your POV.
 * The issue you have about fathers is not the only or even the most notable thing either Rutter or Bowlby are known for. Its one issue. The articles should be written to reflect the range of fields/issues/achievments etc. (For example, on Bowlby, some people may take the view that challenging the psychoanalysts view that infants early relationships/emotions and so on were largely based on internal fantasy events rather than real life events was more significant. On Rutter, some may take the view that his work on autism, or the effects of genes and the environment is the most important. Its not for us personally to tell the reader what to think.)Fainites barley 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

self-published tag2
You must read the page before you edit it. In particular you must check the link to the page on 'monotropy'. What you are doing constitutes vandalism.

Your edits are unwarranted

For those interested, the Jean Mercer citation has been removed from the 'attachment theory' page with regards 'monotropy'.

Therefore I have removed the self-publication tag and replaced it with citations needed tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 08:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No the reference has not been removed. It was moved to a more appropriate position on the end of the passage rather than the beginning - 5 days before Kingsley started his latest round of implied bad faith allegations. Please check your facts Kingsley before flinging accusations around.
 * Removing OR and adding cited material is not vandalism - especially as efforts have been made to check issues through 3PO and sources notice boards - none of which supported your view and all of which you have ignored as indeed you ignore all efforts by other editors to provide you with sources for what they say.
 * Your removal of properly cited material is tendentiousFainites barley 09:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Monotropy
Please make any further contributions to this topic onto the TALKpage for this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Moving discussions from one page to another, ignoring all the sources others have already quoted, and thus requiring other people to start the whole inane process all over again is a game you've played before and I'm not playing. If you yet again attempt to remove selective bits of peoples talkpage posts onto another talkpage thus falsifying talkpage discussions I shall remove them. Fainites barley 09:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Monotropy2
Fainites|barley

You cannot pretend the page does not exist!

How can you make your comments without looking at the reference?

If this is how you edit then it is vandalism.

I have referred this matter to a administrator.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Do that. I have seen your monotropy page. If you have a notable reference which says monotropy is a feature of Maternal deprivation and not a feature of attachment theory as you claim - then put it in! I have already provided my sources for saying its a feature of Bowlby's attachment theory and suggested what you need to find on MD. Fainites barley 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Monotropy3
Fainites|barley

Your vandalism has created a great deal of confusion.

Monotropy is 'abandoned' so how can it be a 'tenet' of the attachment theory?

Please cite your references for the 'tenets'.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Monotropy appears in attachment theory! Its in the trilogy - which is Bowlby's attachment theory! It has been modified or abandoned since by some authors - as part of the development of attachment theory! I have already provided my sources. The attachment theory page says this.

You may be able to find a source that says that Bowlbys concept of 'monotropy' is in reality the same as or analogous to his earlier concept of maternal deprivation - in other words he's naming something he previously thought of - although in my view monotropy is more specific than that. However - you are unlikely to be able to find a source that says its was not a tenet of attachment theory when it appears in the actual papers and books wherein Bowlby sets out attachment theory. from 1958 onwards. Fainites barley 09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley 09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrator please note above2
Please ALSO note that Fanities is adding comments after I made this title.
 * (Why not? they're different threads and its dated. Fainites barley 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Please also note I have no idea what Fanities is saying in his last posting timed at the following

09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note I do not have any quote that says monotropy is a 'tenet' of the attachment theory.

I should like to make it clear the reference quoted specifically cites 'fathers'.KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heres where I provided it for you before Kingsley - aside from the passages I set out on the maternal deprivation talkpage.


 * Please see "Attachment" by Bowlby - 1969 - Chapter 15 - called "Focussing on a Figure". If you have the 1997 paperback which contains Bowlby's revised 1982 version (to which you have been referred) you will see on pages 308 and 309 that Bowlby claims that that older evidence and that more recently available supports his hypothesis advanced in his 1958 paper that there is a strong bias for attachment behaviour to become directed towards one particular person. He then goes on to say "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."


 * I'm quite willing to be proved wrong if you can find an earlier use of the term.
 * I don't know why this is such an issue. Attachment theory is Bowlby's attempt to provide a theoretical base to explain what he sees in maternal deprivation and other early evidence about childrens early relationships. If you weren't so keen to try and claim that Bowlby was not the originator of attachment theory - then the distinction becomes pretty much irrelevent. Are you still claiming Bowlby is not the originator of attachment theory?
 * I'm not saying fathers wasn't an issue for Rutter. I'm just saying it wasn't the only issue - and its not for us to make value judgements about which is the most important issue. I've already provided you with passages where Bowlby in "attachment" gives examples of primary attachments to fathers from Ainswirths work back in the early 60's. Fainites barley 09:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the passage from the 1958 paper:


 * "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."


 * A lot of the confusion may arise because the 1958 paper, which involves a detailed analysis of existing theories, is now seen as the early publication of attachment theory which was published in its full form in the trilogy - but of course in 1958, nobody knew the trilogy was coming 10 years later so it may have been seen perhaps by some as a development of maternal deprivation. However Rutter himself in his 1972 book mentions it in a chapter called 'attachment'. Fainites barley 10:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You may also be interested in this from the 1958 paper (re some research he's referring to) "Indeed, their observations make it plain that the potential for attachment is ever- present in the child and ready, when starved of an object, to fix on almost anyone." Fainites barley 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
how about this? or this ? Fainites barley 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the third opinion more than covered WP:EA, so in this case, I'd go with either WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFM. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the latter. More formal so less opportunity to filibuster. Fainites barley 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For those following this discussion also see;-

List or Table / Administrator please note

at the bottom of the page on 'attachment theory'

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Please see my request to the Mediation Cabal KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a formal mediation might be better. Also - do you realise that to enter mediation requires all parties to assume good faith ? Are you willing to do that? You have made many accusations of bad faith against myself and JeanMercer. Are they withdrawn? Fainites barley 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CABAL

I think we should try this first. I think it was a good idea although I don't think Jean Mercer agrees with you that 'monotropy' is a 'tenet of the attachment theory'. Also I don't think she believe Bowlby is the 'originator' of the attachment theory so I have set up a new page covering that specific topic. I think you should leave it to her to see whether she would like to contribute.

If you have no objections to the page on Michael Rutter we can close the discussion down and move on to the other pages?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means. Yes we leave it to Jean, but she has to know about the mediation to make a decision! Nobody can be forced to undertake mediation anyway. She's been involved in the whole thing so far though she's not as prolix as you or I. What do you say about assumptions of good faith ?
 * I do object to the Rutter page as the middle paragraph is now completely unsourced, contains a fundamental error of fact and you removed a properly sourced passage from a notable secondary source on Ruters contribution to the maternal deprivation debate, (and, I may say, a highly complimentary one - thoughit didn't address your particular issue - but maybe another source can be found for that).Fainites barley 09:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and no I am not happy to keep moving discussions from page to page. I've spent sometime setting out my sources in some detail on several pages now and each time you completely ignore them and restart the same 'debate' on another page, sometimes moving selected chunks of posts with you. This page contains fully set out passages of Bowlby's use of the term monotropy. It also contains the 3PO issues and links. No I'm not going to move to another page. Its games playing and I can't be bothered with it. Fainites barley 09:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Got to say it is no way to mediate by burying your head in the sand every time you see something you don't like. It took you several weeks to acknowledge the page on monotropy.KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A link is not a source. You have yet to respond to the sources I have set out here.
 * You only wrote the article 11 days ago Kingsley - all by yourself - so it hasn't been in existance for weeks anyway.
 * Making lengthy accusations that imply bad faith on three separate mediation requests at the same time without involving all relevent parties is no way to mediate either Kingsley.Fainites barley 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

administrator please note3
Still don't understand your objection.

Please put your objection on the discussion page so that others may follow.

Please note it was the third party that suggested this form of mediation.

I shall refer your objection to an administrator

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Administrator,
 * Please note I have now found out who the author of the list of 'Tenets of the Attachment Theory' is and I have made a separate discussion page for that subject. I wish to find out on what basis she has made this assumption which I believe maybe original research (OR).


 * Fanities believes that Bowlby is the 'originator' of the attachment theory and I have set up a discussion on that topic also. This is a minority view and I am seeking further support for my position.KingsleyMiller (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So, Bowlby's attachment theory was actually originated by someone else? Is this going to be one of those Shakespeare-Bacon things?Jean Mercer (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting to hear who has originated Bowlby's attachment theory. You don't think - but no, no - it couldn't be .... Fainites barley 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hayes, monotropy
Are you seriously saying that Hayes says that quoted material is equivalent to monotropy? Can you provide a more extensive quotation so the context can be seen, something that includes the word monotropy?Jean Mercer (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (NB: The 'quoted material' is what is left over from an edit I made - which is from Maternal Care and Mental Health 1951 (which doesn't mention monotropy). Kingsley removed most of the edit and citations and inserted a different citation.Fainites barley 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Oh, brother! And oh, other things, too. You have more patience than i have, F. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha! A secondary source
I have found a secondary source on that Rutter 1995 paper. Prior and Glaser in "Understanding Attachment" (2006). This is published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit in their Child and Adolescent mental health Unit.
 * "Multiple attachment figures 'are not treated as the equivalents of one another' (Bowlby 1969 p. 304). It is usual for infants to show clear discrimination and focus their attachment behaviour on one special person. Bowlby calls this special person the principal attachment figure. He calls other attachment figures subsidiary attachment figures. He termed the childs bias to attach especially to one figure monotropy.
 * The validity of monotropy has more recently been questioned. Rutter (1995, p551) states that one of the four main changes in attachment theory to have taken place over the years concerns 'abandonment' of the notion of "monotropy". As Bowlby was clear that that children form selective attachments to more than one person, the challenge to the notion of monotropy concerns the extent to which the relationship with the 'special' principal figure differs from that of other attachment figures."

There then follows a very detailed discussion on the various theories relating to multiple attachments and how they relate to each other - ie hierarchical, integrative or independant. P & G take the view that concordance findings do not assist in deciding this point but that outcome studies do. There is so far some empirical support for each version and 'further research is needed' but they conclude by pointing out that Rutter states that it is now clear that there are very definite hierarchies in selective attachments. Applying this to monotropy itself - they point out that Ainsworth states that monotropy did not mean only one attachment figure, but a hierarchy with one principal attachment figure. P & G themselves come down on the side of hierarchy with one principal figure. This does not mean subsidiary figures are unimportant. There's alot of research on the influence of primary/secondary attachment figures. Eg suppose your attachment to the primary figure was insecure but your attachment to a subsidiary figure was secure?

This seems to lead to a position where if you take monotropy to mean a hierarchy with a primary attachment figure then monotropy is alive and kicking. If you take monotropy to mean the primary attachment figure attachment is different in kind then its more controversial. If you take monotropy to mean one attachment figure only then you haven't read Bowlby properly. Watson view indicates that there may be sound evolutionary/ethological reasons for montropy. "....debating who to run to while being rapidly approached by a leopard (let's see, X, presently in a tree, holds me nicely, but Y, on a rock, is good at grooming, and Z on a different rock has the sweetest milk, so, um.....) could concievably be bad for an infants health." Fainites barley 11:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cassidy (1999) in Handbook of Attachment at p. 15 also a) treats monotropy as a hierarchy and b) proposes several ways in which a tendency towards monotropy contributes to infant survival and reproductive fitness. (Only one reason is analogous to Watsons). Fainites barley 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As ever - silence from KingsleyMiller in the face of multiple notable sources, followed by starting the whole inane argument all over again on a different page (cf Maternal deprivation talkpage and John Bowlby talkpage). In this case three different pages masquerading as referrals for mediation. Fainites barley 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

CV
Stuff from CV for inclusion:

"Professor Sir Michael Rutter FRS FBA FMedSci Professor Sir Michael Rutter is Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London.  He has been a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital since 1966, and was Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry from 1973 to 1998.   He set up the Medical Research Council Child Psychiatry Research Unit in 1984 and the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre 10 years later, being honorary director of both until October 1998.   His research has included the genetics of autism; the study of both school and family influences on children’s behaviour; the links between mental disorders in childhood and adult life; epidemiological approaches to test causal hypotheses; and gene-environment interplay.  He was Deputy Chairman of the Wellcome Trust from 1999 to 2004, and has been a Trustee of the Nuffield Foundation since 1992. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1987 and an honorary member of the British Academy in 2002. He was a Founding Fellow of the Academia Europaea and the Academy of Medical Sciences, of which he is currently Clinical Vice-President. He has received numerous international honours and has published some 40 books and over 400 scientific papers and chapters. " Fainites barley 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)