# Talk:Maternal deprivation

All,

Kingsley Miller, kip

THIS IS THE DISCUSSION PAGE FOR 'MATERNAL DEPRIVATION'. If you go to my video clips on YouTube you will see that I have a video clip about this theory made famous by John Bowlby called;-
The Work of Dr.John Bowlby; Reassessed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOjWDz9df4E
Contributing to Wik I have noticed that this theory dominated the pages on attachment and bonding without mentioning the fact that fathers can be equally as important to children as mothers.
I have made a video clip based on this at;-
Wikipedia Mistake:A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spc2WxtPYkU
(PLease note I have subsequently added a section on Maternal Deprivation to the page on John Bowlby and edited other pages to include references to fathers)
TO SHOW READERS THAT Wik is still wedded to this concept I should like to draw readers to the following discussion below between myself and one of the 'sub-editors' (sic) known as 'Fainities'
Many thanks
KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually it rather shows the opposite. Whats a "sub-editor (sic)" Fainites barley 12:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Also I see you have added all the above some days later than the discussion below. Its not really appropriate to rejig talkpages to get your oar in first by way of an 'introduction' because you disagree with other editors. Nor to retrospectively add headings all the way through to yours and others comments that highlight your take on matters, particularly when your headings contain personal attacks! What if I started doing the same thing for every single one of my comments? How silly could it all get? Talkpages should stand as they are written as a record of what editors said and the context in which they said it. Discussions should follow a thread. The only refactoring appropriate is things like indenting to make threads clearer or that kind of thing. Fainites barley 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its right to say Bowlby developed his theory further because of a 'body of criticism', particularly when much of the 'body of criticism' you cite postdates his main works. Secondly I think you do the likes of Bowlby a disservice by assuming they behave as if their theories are set in stone, that they have to get absolutely everything right all at once and that any subsequent development somehow proves them wrong. This is not how science works. You have also missed out the rather important stuff about the hierearchy of attachments which seems to indicate that although infants can develop a number of attachments (precise number unknown) they tend to have a primary, preferred one - and then others in a descending hierarchy. Where you are on the hierarchy would depend not on whether you had a willy or not but on the extent to which you were the primary carer. Fainites barley 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from "Attachment and Loss", the first volume of Attachment which he started in 1956:

"In this discussion so far it has been implied that a child directs his attachment behavior towards one particular figure, referred to either as his mother figure or even simply as his mother. This usage, which for the sake of brevity is unavoidable, has nonetheless given rise on occasion to misunderstanding. For example, it has sometimes been alleged that I have expressed the view that mothering should always be provided by a childs natural mother, and also that mothering 'cannot be safely distributed among several figures' (Mead 1962). No such views have been expressed by me..........almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother."
Heres another bit:

"It is evident that whom a child selects as his principal attachment figure and to how many other figures he becomes attached, turn in large part on who cares for him and on the composition of the household in which he is living. As a matter of empirical fact there can be no doubt that in virtually every culture the people in question are most likely to be his natural mother, father, older siblings, and perhaps grandparents, and that it is from amongst these figures that a child is most likely to select both his principal attachment-figure and his subsidiary figures."
He then discusses two (then) recent studies, one in Scotlad and one in Ganda. He points out that in both studies, only children living with their natural mother had been selected and therefore "it is not surprising that in an overwhelming proportion of cases a child's principal attachment figure was his natural mother." He then makes a point of pointing out that even then, there were instances in both studies where childrens principal attachment figure was their father, and that in a number of others the father came to share the role of principal attachment figure in the second year even though the mother had been the principal figure in the first year. It is obvious that he is highlighting this to illustrate his point that anybody can be a principal attachment figure.
I don't think trying to pin Bowlby down solely to the 1952 publication of maternal deprivation and the subsequent misrepresentation of his views for political purposes in the '50's and by the media thereafter is really providing comprehensive Wiki articles. Pointing out that he used 'mother' and 'mother-figure' throughout isn't enough. He also uses 'he' for the infant throughout. Are we to assume from that that attachment behaviours only emanate from male infants? As for the media - I think there may be a whole article on just how out-of-date the media and/or popular beliefs generally are. I reckon there is about a 50 year time lag. Fainites barley 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
As for mothers going out to work - most had little option. Married women usually lost their jobs on marriage - or pregnancy if they'd concealed their marriage. Unmarried women were mostly limited to poorly paid and unrewarding jobs. The policy to throw women out of work to provide jobs for ex-servicemen after the war was partly promoted as policy and partly enforced by the sudden closure of the nurseries used during the war. Being able to be financially independent on benefits when single and bring up children is comparatively recent. As for the courts - 'maternal deprivation' is not generally used in the courts. They are concerned with the primary carer. Most of the time that is the mother because that is how most people continue to organise their lives. It is not always the mother however, which is why the term 'primary carer' is often preferred. Words such as mothering or mother-figure are often used to describe activities rather than a particular person, out of long cultural usage. (I would agree with you by the way that children need both. Unfortunately both are not always an option). Fainites barley 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly true that Bowlby used the term "mother" in a generic way, to mean a caregiving person, and in this he followed long usage: to "mother" someone means to care for them, to "father" means to impregnate a woman. However much we may dislike this, it is the case. 
Actually, if Bowlby had thought only women could be "mothers", he would not have referred to Harlow's work, in which baby monkeys treated a soft monkey-like figure as a surrogate mother. If terrycloth can be a "mother", surely a man can too.
The most important point of Bowlby's work is not who can be mother, but the fact that attachment is not based on feeding (cf. S. Freud), but on social interaction. This view, following that of Ian Suttie, in fact "frees" men to be the mothering person, by making breastfeeding irrelevant.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What's more, even if Bowlby began with ethology and monotropy, there's nothing in that view that contradicts the possibility of attachment to fathers. If ducklings could imprint on Konrad Lorenz and on toy trains, there seems nothing to imply that humans could attach only to females.Jean Mercer (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you are saying about Bowlby? That he did not write 'Maternal Care and Mental Health'? That he did not make his reputation based on the theory of 'maternal deprivation'? That the World Health Organisation, never produced 'Deprivation of Maternal Care; A Reassessment of its Effects'? That Rutter never wrote 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed'? That this is what he is not still famous (infamous) for? That his theory of 'maternal deprivation'is not being constantly quoted?
Which bit do you disagree with, cause even your own expert Jean Mercer does not dispute these points.
Do you think the people who signed my petition do not know what they are talking about?
Are you on a mission to recast Bowlby's reputation? Bowlby would like people think he invented the 'attachment theory' but he did not!
If you do not want to make the changes necessary to Wik, fine. But don't attack me for trying to give the facts to people.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your points and provided some quotations from Bowlby in support. I don't think Bowlby's primarily famous for Maternal Deprivation. I don't think he's infamous at all. I haven't noticed Maternal Deprivation being constantly quoted - though some of the media might, they generally being pretty out of date. I don't agree that maternal deprivation and attachment theory are synonymous or generally seen as synonymous as you say on your video. Its not a term generally used in social work, psychology or the law and hasn't been for years whereas attachment theory is pretty much mainstream. Jean Mercer is not 'my expert'. She's been on Wiki longer than I and stands on her own two feet. Bowlby doesn't need anybody to 'recast his reputation'. His theories will either stand the test of scientific research over time or they won't. So far they're doing pretty well. This doesn't mean he was correct in every particular. 
I'm not attacking you Kip. I'm disagreeing with you about attachment theory. Thats normal on Wiki. You are the one getting personal. Lets not go there. We can amicably agree to differ surely. I don't have a particular 'mission' now. I suppose it was to clean up the attachment related articles after the depredations of the old attachment therapy sock army. Fainites barley 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What theory is Bowlby famous for? What theory that he invented has stood the test of time?
In which video clip do I say,

"maternal deprivation and attachment theory are synonymous"

HERE IS A SECTION FROM THE PAGE IN WIKIPEDIA YOU ARE DISCUSSING;-
Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory
Adapted from 'Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect' (Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume. 36 No 4, p551, 1995) by Professor Sir Michael Rutter.
(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.

Nope. I don't need to apologise for disagreeing with you. If I have misunderstood something you have said it would be unwittingly. I do recall you saying something along the lines of maternal deprivation and attachment theory as coming to be seen as synonymous in your video. I'll listen again to find the exact quote when I have a moment in case I misheard it. I also feel you have misunderstood what I have said but I do not attribute any malicious intent to that! Just as an example of how misunderstandings arise - I take JeanMercers comments above as agreeing with my position whereas you take them as agreeing with yours! Who knows what JM thinks of that. As I say - disagrement about theoretical matters is normal on Wiki. You shouldn't take disagreement personally. We've always worked perfectly well together before. Lets carry on that way shall we? Fainites barley 11:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now checked your videos again. In "The Work of Dr.John Bowlby; Reassessed" you say "the theory of attachment has become synonymous with the theory of maternal deprivation". I have not therefore misquoted you. Fainites barley 12:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"The confusion about Bowlby stems from the reputation he made for the theory of Maternal Deprivation. The real contribution he made was to their institutionalized care. Later on Bowlby himself realized he put too much emphasis on the role of the mother and so diffused the concept into the Attachment Theory. But there were others working in this field and it would be wrong to claim he invented the concept. The problem lies in that the Attachment Theory has become synonyms with the theory of Maternal Deprivation and in many peoples minds they mean the same thing".

I do not say the "maternal deprivation and attachment theory are synonymous". I say the opposite on the video clip and as shown by the Wikipedia page. 
The real meaning could not be clearer.
You have tried to make it sound as though I said they are the same and this is supported by most people when I have said the opposite. You are guilty of taking the phrase out of context to deliberately misrepresent my point of view.
You cannot claim that this is an accident or that you did not mean to do so because you went back to find the quote and the real meaning must be clear.
You do not have anything to criticize me for so you have made things up!
KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You say the theory of attachment has become synonymous with maternal deprivation. I don't agree with you. I work with people who use attachment theory concepts all the time and I've never heard anybody even mention maternal deprivation.Fainites barley 22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You attribute to Bowlby above. This is what you say,
Here is a quote from "Attachment and Loss", the first volume of Attachment which he started in 1956:

"In this discussion so far it has been implied that a child directs his attachment behavior towards one particular figure, referred to either as his mother figure or even simply as his mother. This usage, which for the sake of brevity is unavoidable, has nonetheless given rise on occasion to misunderstanding. For example, it has sometimes been alleged that I have expressed the view that mothering should always be provided by a childs natural mother, and also that mothering 'cannot be safely distributed among several figures' (Mead 1962). No such views have been expressed by me..........almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother."
But how can Bowlby in 1956 quote from Mead writing in 1962 as you claim?
I have got to say that wherever you got the quote from it seems to be supporting the same point of view I describe in the video clip. Are you not arguing against yourself and just adjusted the date so it fits in better with your own criticism of me?
What is the full quote? From whom? When?
Does it not go to justify what I have been saying from the beginning?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It says he started it in 1956. This is what Bowlby says in the preface to his book. If you had the book you wouldn't so blithely accuse others of bad faith by suggesting I have 'adjusted ' the date. The whole work in three volumes took over 10 years but his research anf developments continued thereafter. The quote is from Bowlby himself in volume one Attachment and Loss. What on earth do you mean "wherever you got the quote from". This is Bowlby's major work. I assume you have read Bowlby as you make such extreme comments about him. The point I am trying to make is that Bowlby's theory is not defined by maternal deprivation. He makes it very clear that attachment theory does not propose that only Mothers can be primary or other attachment figures. JM endorses this and she is an expert in the field. Anyway - if you want to see me as evilly motivated because I disagree with you then fine - thats your choice. I have attempted to suggest that a mere disagreement about a text need not prevent us working together, despite your easy assumptions of bad faith on the part of people who have the audacity to disagree with you. I still think that is the case. It is up to you as to whether or not you think everybody having to agree with your interpretation is a necessary requirement for editing articles. Why don't you check out Wiki policies on this point. Fainites barley 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I realise you have not contradicted anything I have stated and noted beforehand that you are pretty mainstream as a rule.
I should be very grateful if you would take a look at the Wik page called 'Human bonding' and tell me what you think?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have contradicted the idea that Bowlby was committed to attachment as directed toward the mother alone-- at least, that's what i meant to do when I referred to that background material.
I looked at the "human bonding" page and am not exactly sure what you're asking me about. Parent-infant bonding is the only part i know much about. (The idea of physical adhesion in bonding is, I hope, metaphorical?) When I say bonding below, I mean parent-infant. 
There are a few issues I see about that part. First, there's no reference to Klaus and Kennell, and right or wrong as K and K may be, you really can't discuss the recent history or research evidence on this topic without them. They have a nice discussion of paternal engrossment that you'd probably enjoy. Second, I think the discussion of bonding would do well to take a page from the attachment discussion and deal with bonding BEHAVIOR--  how would we know from watching whether there was parental bonding to a baby, as we can infer from watching which adult a toddler prefers? Third-- and I don't know how this works with various Wiki rules-- I believe the average reader needs some clarification of differences and similarities between bonding and attachment. Fourth, I think the discussion would be more meaningful if the non-human research were separated from that based on humans--  for example, if we remember that rat maternal behavior means nest-building and retrieving pups who wander off, that helps clarify what human parental behavior does and does not share with that of other creatures (there's some nice old work by Harriet Rheingold on baboon mothers and the factors that determine when they refuse to carry their babies any more). Fifth, if there's to be a discussion of whether bonding begins during pregnancy, it would probably help to talk about stages like fetal embodiment and the way they help shape parental attitudes (and you're right if you say we don't know enough about fathers' thoughts on this). Sixth, and i hope I don't think of more, a related issue is post-partum psychosis and related child-killing-- how does this rare but tragic event fit with other things we know about bonding?
I think integrating some or all of these points into the topic would make the parent-infant part of "human bonding" more informative. Best regards, Jean Mercer (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC

I don't actually see you disagreeing with me.KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose one issue is, Jean, is there any difference beween attachment and bonding. I'm not sure what the original authors meant to cover but I don't get the impression they thought bonding and attachment were synonymous. What do you understand bonding to mean, if anything, that isn't covered by attachment? Fainites barley 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr.Interlocutor! In discussions of parent-infant bonding, the term bonding refers to emotional and behavioral changes in the adult, changes in a direction that encourages good care of the infant, and sensitivity and responsiveness to the infant's signals. These would include increased looking at and listening to the infant and preoccupation with its needs, as well as thinking and talking in ways showing preoccupation with the child. You might say that bonding includes the emotions and behaviors that make other people often find new parents so boring! Bonding behaviors are usually seen in the first days or weeks of the child's life, but may be delayed if the child is ill or at risk in some way. Bonding occurs more quickly when the child is healthy, lively, and responsive (a fact referred to by the statement, "You can't fall in love with a limp dishrag"). Although parents may continue to have a deep emotional connection with children through a lifetime, the frequency and urgency of bonding behavior tend to diminish as the child grows more competent and independent, but may increase if the child is hurt or in danger.
One problem with the definition of bonding is that in some professions, e.g. maternity nursing, the word bonding is used to describe the work of the nurse in helping parent and infant get to know each other, without reference to any actual emotional or behavioral changes.
The term attachment, on the hand, refers to the young child's preference for familiar adults and the emotional distress that occurs upon separation. Attachment behavior does not appear until close to the end of the first year. 
I would say that bonding (in the parent)provides the ideal social environment for attachment (in the child), and that the existence of attachment probably facilitates the child's later, adult bonding to his or her own child, but I cannot support this statement with any kind of evidence.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So 'bonding' is the counterpart of attachment then? The caregiver behaviours. And by the way, i have a limp dishrag of which I am very fond thank you very much! Fainites barley 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup-- or if you want to think about animals like sheep, the parent shows epimeletic behavior and the lamb shows etepimeletic behavior. Happily, these terms never became popular for describing humans. Nighty-night to your dishrag, then--Jean Mercer (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bowlby was not the first to stress the primacy of the relationship with the mother-- and indeed he emphasized the biological mother a good deal less than others like Freud and Klein had done.
In addition, Bowlby does not say that attachment develops in the first 6 months. There are important steps in social interactions during that time, but attachment behaviors and emotions are not generally apparent until 7 or 8 months.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Heres a quote from "Maternal Care and Mental Health" 1952 which shows that even then Bowlby wasn't saying it had to be the Mother. 

"What is essential for mental health is that the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with his mother (or mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment." Fainites barley 23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that Bowlby was working just before, during, and soon after the war years, when most fathers would have been working long hours, away fighting, or already killed or severely injured. This was a time during which most children had either maternal care or institutional care, and the latter would have involved female care providers. As a result of this situation, it makes perfect sense for Bowlby to have considered the caregiver as "she" and the work she was doing as "maternal." This does not imply that there is no advantage to having two loving parents--in fact, to question this would be like "Would you rather be rich and healthy or poor and sick?". But Bowlby's focus was on the necessity for at least one such person, and where there was one, that one was likely to be the mother.
At the same time, of course, the kibbutzniks were attempting to organize child care without a consistent caregiving adult, and what appears to have resulted is an unusual degree of attachment of children to other children rather than to adults.
In either case, these views were very different from the S. Freudian concern with attachment to the breastfeeding mother.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't understand the comments in the second paragraph about fathers providing for their families. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What does this mean - "diffuse the concept of 'Maternal Deprivation' into the attachment theory" - ?Fainites barley 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(Please see my video clips) KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment above - even today it is still the case that the majority of primary carers will be female regardless of 3 decades of drives towards equality in the Western world increasing the number of women in the workforce. Whats more, the great majority, though not all, 'mother substitutes' are female too. This isn't because men can't be primary carers. Of course they can. Its just the way societies have been organised since before history began. I think I am also right in saying that the recognition of the capacity and desirability of having a number of attachment figures doesn't alter the absolute necessity to have a primary one at a certain point in development - but I'm sure Jean will correct me if I'm wrong on that.Fainites barley 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As someone (maybe Sally Provence?) once said, the one thing every baby really needs is to have someone who's just crazy about them. It doesn't matter too much who the person is, although of course he or she needs to be competent to do the actual care. When there are many caregivers, it seems to be difficult for anyone to be the one who's really crazy about the baby. The "really crazy" caregiver is more attentive, more sensitive, more responsive to the baby than the other people are, and this attentiveness etc. fosters the baby's ability to communicate and receive communications as well as to seek security by approaching the primary caregiver.
However, I don't think the mono-tropy idea is right--  there are secondary figures who are much more important than strangers can be-- maybe oligo-tropy would be the right term. 
An interesting speculation by Margaret Mead was that in hunting and gathering societies babies were kept away from their fathers, because if the fathers really bonded to them, they (fathers) would never be willing to go away to hunt, and then the group would starve.I have no idea whether there's any truth to this, but it's a good example of the history of thought about the emotional roles of both parents in the baby's life... another example is Stanley Greenspan's description of the movement from dyadic to triadic communication as it's fostered by having two caregivers. But all this is far too much to fit into this article.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me the page number for the above reference from Bowlby? please, kip comment.
(I wish to put a DATE to your reference and will go to the University library to find the exact book)
Can you direct me to the correct Wikipedia page to make such a complaint?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that you have implied that I have made up or misquoted Bowlby without you even having looked at the book?
The book is the 1997 reprint of vol. 1 of Attachment, "Attachment and Loss". According to Bowlby he started it in 1956 and it was published in 1969. The bits I quoted are from pps. 303, 304 and 305. I don't know the exact page numbers in the original 1969 print but they shouldn't be too far off. I have to say given the extreme comments you have spread all over Wiki and YouTube about Bowlby I'm somewhat disconcerted to discover that you don't appear to have consulted the major work for which he is known. If you read volume 1 (and its not a difficult read) you will see that there are long sections on the whole issue of primary and subsidiary figures and the state of evidence as it then was, including discussion of various studies and various theories by the likes of Winnicott and Ainsworth.
On your particular bugbear about fathers, might I refer you to p. 29 whereon he says (in a foot note):
"Although throughout this book the text refers usually to "mother" and not to "mother-figure", it is to be understood that in every case reference is to the person who mothers a child and to whom he becomes attached. For most children, of course, that person is also his natural mother."
You might also be interested for example in a later section at p 315 where he is discussing Schaffer and Emerson and the processes by which a child selects attachment figures, where he says:
"Naturally, quite often figures who were readily responsive to crying and who frequently interacted socially were also those who were most frequently available. But this was not always so: for example, some mothers who were availableall day were not responsive to or sociable with their infants, whereas some fathers who were not frequently available interacted strongly with their infants whenever they were with them. In such families, Schaffer and Emerson found, a child tended to become more intensly attached to father than to mother."
In the circumstances I consider representing Bowlby as defined by maternal deprivation who wrote attachment theory as an 'apology' and was infamous only for saying children loved their mothers to be a somewhat limited view. Fainites barley 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(see your talkpage for details on how to make a complaint.Fainites barley 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
For the avoidance of doubt - this is a reprint of the second edition - he sets out in his preface where new bits have been added. The second edition appears to have come out in the first half of the 80's. Fainites barley 10:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I wish to make an official complaint against Fainites|barley. You can see that he has used your comments to support his contribution and I wondered if you would like to make any further comment?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I SHOULD LIKE TO CALL A 'TRUCE' ON THIS PAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIK PROCEDURE FOR ARBITRATION.
I have fundamental concerns with the edits made by Fainites/barley and Jean Mercer
KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way - as I have pointed out above, it is absolutely not on to mess around with other peoples talkpage comments. They should remain as written other than possibly a little indenting for clarity. To divide peoples comments up and add your own headings to other peoples posts, particularly headings that contain accusations in breach of Wiki policies is absolutely not on. I propose to remove your headings that you have added after other peoples exchanges were already made and put the originals back as they were as best I can. Talkpages should stand as an actual record of what people actually wrote, to whom amd in what context. Please don't interfere with other peoples posts again. Fainites barley 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fanities,
I have called a TRUCE and I would appreciate it if you stopped editing these pages in accordance with the TRUCE.
I feel the HEADINGS I provided for your contributions HIGHLIGHTED aspects of my complaint against you.
I should be very glad if you would restore the page before the TRUCE so that I may make this point in ARBITRATION.
If you have a COMPLAINT against me then you may use the same procedure.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kip you must not interefere with other peoples talkpage comments. If you disagree with what I say then fine - but retrospectively dividing things up with new headings implying bad faith is simply not on. I restored to page to its proper form as it was when it was written. Its supposed to be an accurate record - not your submissions for a complaint. You make those elsewhere. A "truce" is for articles anyway - not talkpages. Fainites barley 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not for you to decide but for the arbiter. This forms part of my complaint and I would like it restored because it shows evidence of bad faith. If you have a complaint then use the same procedure. Otherwise restore the page.
Please let the arbiter decide.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it difficult to believe that you cannot see that there is a problem in retrospectively adding things to talkpage posts. Be that as it may, despite my efforts I can see that any further discussion at the moment is fruitless. If you are going to complain then by all means get on with it. Fainites barley 11:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You've put this in the intro. Kip. "The notion that fathers are necessarily less competent ...." Where does Bowlby say this? Fainitesbarley 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not make any further such comments until after ARBITRATION as they bring Wik into disrepute.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Kip - this is silly. You have asked for my sources and I have given them. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for sources - and there are several requests for you to provide yours. Everything in an article should be sourced. As for arbitration - I suggest you read WP:DR first. Fainites barley 10:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is cited and the reference is given
Once again you have taken a phrase out of context and as an editor you are bringing Wik into disrepute.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this bit from p 308: 

"It is uncertain whether social behaviour begins to be directed towards discriminated subsidiary figures at the same time as it it first directed towards a principal attachment-figure or whetherit is directed towards subsidiary figures a little later. ......Schaffer and Emerson presen their findings as supporting the first view. Ainsworth, on the other hand, inclines to the belief that the direction of attachment behaviours towards subsidiary figures occurs a little later than it does to a principle figure......."
"...the infant who begins by showing an intense attachment to a principal figure is reported as significantly more likely to direct his social behaviour to other discriminated figures as well, whereas an infant who is weakly attached is more likely to confine all his socail behaviour to a single figure...."
"..... it is a mistake to suppose that a young child diffuses his attachment over many figures in such a way that he gets along with no strong attachment to anyone, and consequently without any particular person when that person is away. In the contrary, both the older evidence and that more recently available (Rutter, 1981, Ainsworth, 1982) supports a hypothesis advanced in an earlier paper (Bowlby, 1958), namely that there is a strong bias for attachment behaviour to become directed towards one particular person..."
The cite to Rutter by the way is to the second edition of "Maternal deprivation reassessed". Fainites barley 11:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose to make some significant changes to this article as it currently misrepresents both Bowlby and Rutter. In particular the whole of the second section purports to define differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory, whereas in fact the 4 elements set out in the 1995 paper cited are specifically developments in attachment theory between its first publication in 1969 and later developments - two of which Rutter specifically attributes to Bowlby.It also contains some unreferenced assertions.Fainites barley 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved some of your material from the intro into a history section Jean. Hope thats OK. Feel free to move it back if you think it appropriate.Fainites barley 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ho ho, you think I know how, do you? No, it's fine where it is. I  thought maybe an introductory sentence about Bowlby might make that section a bit less abrupt, however.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean still or is that what you did already? Fainites barley 09:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that CAM psychotherapies stress the mother's influence and the consequences of separation, even today. I'll add some material referring to this.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it just CAM psychotherapies? There's all sorts of research, not specifically on attachment, about the very early relationship between infant and Mother. Is all this stuff just CAM or is any of it 'respectable' ? Fainites barley 09:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of CAM views - there are of course the attachment therapy type views on rage and abandonment from pre-birth thoughts of the mother, or adoption at birth and all that ...stuff. Fainites barley 11:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, there's lots of real stuff about early interaction patterns, but i would think they'd go better in another article. I was referring to the AT and APPPAH views on prenatal experience.Jean Mercer (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That last section is very good but it does read as if pre-natal experiences and early days interaction patterns are only CAM. (There's research on pre-natal recognition of the mothers voice - but whether or not that signifies anything I don't know. Wots APPPAH when its at home? not an acronym that's really caught on.) Fainites barley 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It (this section)doesn't say anything about early interaction patterns, though. Do i need to say it does NOT mean that? Nor does it say anything about cognitive processes (like recognizing a voice)--  just about emotion. The other things are important in the larger picture, but it seems to me the tail would be wagging the dog if they were brought in to this part. APPPAH is Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health. They're experts on what you remember from conception or BEFORE. Don't ask me to explain that part. I've never figured out whether "you" are in the ovum, in the sperm, in one of your sex chromosomes, in mitochondrial DNA or what.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Blimey! Fainites barley 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember the "homunculus" ? Science comes full circle. Fainites barley 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

a) I read somewhere just recently that one of the main effects of the exaggeration of 'maternal deprivation' ideas was to make mothers feel guilty because anything wrong with the child/adult had to be entirely their fault! I can't find it now. Can you remember seeing it?
b) I also saw recently that one of the things that was new with Bowlby was statistical/mathematical analysis of research results in this kind of area. The quote said something along the lines of it seeming rudimentary now compared to modern day standards of research but it was pioneering at the time. Fainites barley 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
a) that was certainly the effect of all that "rampant environmentalism" but i don't know specifically where the statement comes from.
b) It was certainly rudimentary as all get out, but i suppose the idea was that by looking at 44 kids Bowlby was taking a step beyond the usual single case study. However, it seems to me that one of the interesting things was Bowlby's slight move toward considering individual differences, a way of thinking more characteristic of British empiricism than of the nativism of Freud, ethologists, and all (nativism meaning in this case that if one individual has a characteristic like needing an attachment figure, all his conspecifics could be guessed to have it too).Jean Mercer (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Something about Spitz should probably go in here too. I've been forgetting that. But where there's the external link to the vido, I can't imagine why it says these are insecure attachments.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked the links. It can easily be renamed. Would the Spitz film be better in the Spitz article do you think?Fainites barley 07:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's here, Spitz should be mentioned, that's all-- but he really ought to be mentioned anyway.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like there is an article on Rene Spitz. It's a bit brief but not bad re the effects of early separation on infants and 'hospitalism' (which still appears in ICD-10). Bretherton says "Preparation of the WHO report gave Bowlby an opportunity to pick the brains of many practitioners and researchers across Europe and the United States who were concerned with the effects of maternal separation and deprivation on young children, including Spitz (1946) and Goldfarb (1943, 1945)....Like Spitz (1946) and Erikson (1950), Bowlby had latched onto the concept of critical periods in embryological development....". It appears though that Spitz was also later one of the psychoanalysts who mounted a joint attack on Bowlby for his subsequent revision of Freudian ideas by incorporating ethological and evolutionary concepts into the beginnings of attachment theory in his third paper, “Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood” (1960). This of course was all after maternal deprivation. (I have a book somewhere that lists 34 refugees from psychoanalysis who were excluded for daring to question Freudian canon and who went on to found their own forms of psychodynamic approach.)Fainites barley 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just found an article called infant metaphysics. Fainites barley 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Too bad they don't refer to empirical work-- and they're way behind the times if they think 3-D vision involves unconscious inference.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There are so many articles have such odd titles or are strangely case sensitive. Fainites barley 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Should note 10 not refer to Wootton's paper in the "reassessment" volume? These are separate papers, and I don't think it's suitable to make this appear to refer to Ainsworth. I think the correct reference would be
Wootton, B. (1966). A social scientist's approach to maternal deprivation. In World Health Organization (Ed.), Deprivation of Maternal Care: A Reassessment of its Effects (pp. 255-266). New York: Schocken. 
I haven't altered this, in case the editor involved had a different paper in mind. But I can't see that Ainsworth could have been the source.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I was planning to go through and wikify all the refs properly at some point anyway. The specific ref to that paper on paternal deprivation should also go in. Fainites barley 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its now note 13. Could you check I've done the right one? Fainites barley 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be note 14. Is 12 the Rutter paper? Jean Mercer (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Bother. I'll check. Fainites barley 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC) All fine. Fainites barley 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Found that bit. It was van Dijken "Bowlby also differed from Winnicott by using statistics in his early psychoanalytic writings (see for example Bowlby, 1944, 1946a).  Although Bowlby’s use of statistics is by recent standards rather modest, he was a pioneer at that time.  Articles in the International Journal of Psycho-Analysis of that time hardly ever contained statistical or mathematical information.” " Fainites barley 15:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That bit from Ainsworth in the intro - re the dates - I thought that paper by Ainsworth appeared in the 1962 WHO publication. I have a copy of the original 1962 version.Fainites barley 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Would this be the reference:
Ainsworth, M.D. (1962). [title as usual] , in Deprivation of Maternal Care: A Reassessment of its Effects. Geneva: World Health Organization, Public Health Papers, No. 14. (I don't have page numbers)
I have this as reprinted along with other papers in the 1966 Schocken edition. But change to this 1962 version if you prefer.
Here's another interesting historical piece which i don't have at the moment:
Casler, L. (1961). Maternal deprivation: A critical review of the literature. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 26, No. 2, 1-64.
I believe Leon Yarrow did a similar review at about the same time, querying exactly what it was that a maternally-deprived child was deprived of. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the original would be better. On the other point - I think thats one of the most trenchant criticisms and why MD syndrome has not really survived as a discrete syndrome. There are so many different forms of lacks/deprivations in poor institutional care - and of course you can't take a bunch of orphans, deprive them in different specific ways and then compare the results. Mind you - the research just didn't exist at the time and few seemed to see the necessity for it. It seems amazing now that the idea that an infant needed a continuous, reciprocal warm relationship was treated with 'incredulity' at the time - but thats history for you. There is actually a branch of history that tries to deal with the mind set of different periods. Many people still take the 'tabula rasa' approach to infants and toddlers even now.Fainites barley 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that Casler thing mentioned somewhere. I'll see what I can find. Fainites barley 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Rutter cites Casler 1968 as one of the people who rejected the notion that providing an ongoing warm relationship was as important a part of parenting as care, discipline and stimulation etc. Fainites barley 22:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But I don't think Casler meant "don't love them-- that's for wimps." He meant that embedded in what adults see as loving treatment are various forms of sensory stimulation that do the actual work of facilitating development. So the "love" part has its significance in motivating the adult to treat the child in ways that encourage good development, such as persisting in interactions and making an effort to understand the child's communications and talking when it's not essential to talk...from this point of view, it's not  that the child somehow divines that it is loved, but that the love component creates behavior. It was this behavior that Casler wanted researchers to unpack into its significant parts.Jean Mercer (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The Casler article Rutter cites is the 1968 perceptual stimulation piece, not the 1961 MD review. However, the Casler and the Yarrow articles said pretty much the same thing--  the term MD is too general, we need to know what's actually missing in the child's life. I think it would be more accurate to say that Casler rejected the concept as it was being used in that loose way, not the actual role of relationships.Jean Mercer (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Flicking around on the net, what seems to come up most, apart from largely inaccurate students cheat essays, are scientific papers on research on rats and various e-encyclopaedias which talk of 'maternal deprivation syndrome' in the context of NOFTT. I wonder if we should have a section on this use in relation to NOFTT. It doesn't appear in ICD-10 though. Is it in DSM-IV-TR? Fainites barley 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The closest thing is 307.59, Feeding disorder of infancy or early childhood. 
I really wouldn't want to try to drag this into MD, because that implies that it's just the mother's actions that cause it, whereas the baby's cues may be unusually hard to read or there may be other issues like attempting re-feeding after a period of starvation. 
As for the animal studies, it's very hard to generalize, because most baby mammals have a lot of trouble with digestion and elimnination if their mothers don't lick them a lot, and happily this is not required of human mothers.Jean Mercer (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Except in attachment therapy I seem to recall. Fainites barley 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but even there they don't lick the same places. I hope!Jean Mercer (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course although Maternal deprivation hasn't really stood the test of time except in relation to NOFTT, and attachment isn't Rutters main area, there are those more recent Rutter papers on 'maternal care' and 'non-maternal care'. Not quite the same thing I suppose but he seemed to find some interesting correlations. Fainites barley 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm finding that even Hartmann, Kris, and Loewenstein in 1945 were considering the possibility that maternal care was pretty much equivalent to having enough stimulation. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What did they mean by 'maternal care' ? Fainites barley 06:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as i can see, it's just the needful--  feed, clean, keep warm and comfort. Jean Mercer (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The psychoanalysis box has reappereared. Not entirely sure if it should be here. What do you think? He was a psychoanalyst, and director at Tavistock for decades after all - but they also ostracised him, (along with anyone else who thought 'outside the box'. Now its the revenge of the box!) Fainites barley 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's deceptive--  unless there's an ethology box too, and perhaps some other boxes.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
We did discuss at one point an attachment box as is doesn't entirely fit into any other - but I'm not sure its a big enough subject by itself to warrant a box. Fainites barley 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bowlby made it clear that he was referring to mothers as females and this excluded fathers. This page confuses this important issue therefore I have added the tag.
Much of the other stuff is irrelevant and only confuses the reader.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean, I've got a secondary source on feminist criticism of maternal deprivation. Worth a paragraph don't you think? Fainites barley 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fainites barley 11:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as there will now be no mediation to resolve these issues.[1] Fainites barley 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've templated, isbn'd and pmid'd what there is - but much of it is too old for isbn/pmid classification. I've checked and corrected Kingsleys cite from Schaffer but haven't been able to check Berman and Parke yet. I'm putting it in for GA Fainites barley 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've checked Berman. Its rather old and there is more recent research on this topic. I found one recent study which showed that females showed more interest in infants (contrary to the original post) and another which showed the same interest but that the females were more responsive. We need to look at the research in the round to represent this aspect fairly - ie is there more recent research regarding your own infants as opposed to infants in general? I took Bernam out until we can look at this in more detail. Fainites barley 13:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts - its not really relevent to this article. Perhaps its more of a bonding thing - from the other side. Fainites barley 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maternal deprivation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I plan to review this article. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


### Preliminary Review
I have read this article through once, and before I give a verdict here are some easily fixable flaws I've found. Those marked as "Done" are issues I have fixed myself. Those marked "Not done" are issues which I am not sure how to handle, and would recommend an editor more experienced with the article address.

WWII and WW II should be World War II, at least at first mention. Also should not be wikilinked more than once.
 Done
Typo at footnote 8a: Missing period.
 Done
History section: "He called this reaction to total deprivation hospitalism." Should be "He called this reaction to total deprivation hospitalism."?
 Not done I've punctuated it to make it clear. "Hospitalism" is actually what he called it. Fainites
Fathers section:
"that both parents influence their childs development" Should be "that both parents influence their child's development".
 Done
"He concluded "For some..." Should be  "He concluded, "For some...".
 Done
Maternal deprivation today section:
"as outlined by John Bowlby, (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980)," bolded text should be in footnote?
Tricky. Its part of a quote and the dates are important - other wise people mix up maternal deprivation and attachment theory. I'll think how to do it.Fainites barley 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 Not done I've sort of refined it. What do you think? Fainites barley 21:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"east european" Should be "east European" or "East European".
 Done
If I were to provide a verdict now, I would rate the article as such:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Address above problems, but other than that looks good.
B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Very few spots where citation would be beneficial, but nothing to ruin a nomination over.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
I am impressed by the amount of work done on this article by one editor, I could barely tell that this was the fact.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This is not a final review- waiting for above concerns to be addressed.
Since these issues exist, but are by no means major, I will put this nomination on hold until they are fixed. Once this happens, kindly notify me on my talk page and I will happily resume the review. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Fainites barley 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
All done - but I've left the crosses for you to change. Fainites barley 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


### Second Review
Thank you very much for correcting these small problems. With those out of the way, it gives me great pleasure to award this article GA status. Congratulations to all involved editors; you have constructed a very informative article about a fascinating aspect of psychology. Well done. I will proceed to add/remove the necessary tags. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 02:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So much criticism of maternal deprivation experiments is based upon the cruelty of using nonhumans to model human maternal deprivation experiences.  Though still exploitative, some models merely test the neurological value of cage enrichment and then 'sacrifice' the NHPs (beheading) after the trial period (in the cage) to examine relative growth in brain tissues (in the 'subjects'). MaynardClark (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading about Bowlby's attachment theory and the page talks about something called "affectionless psychopathy." Right now I am unable to check the primary sources to see if this is true or relevant. OrangeAipom (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Bowlby got his English language usage wrong. He incorrectly used the term deprivation - as does this article, thinking it meant privation. It does not. Privation - the insufficient supply of a requirement - is a risk factor. Deprivation - the gross absence of a requirement - is not. Deprivation causes profound harm. Unambiguously. Unequivocally. To wit, maternal REJECTION. It causes profound, life-long, psychologically devastating, utterly refractory ie untreatable psychic damage, annihilating the child's psyche, and destroying the ability to experience a human life. Maternal rejection is simply psychological infanticide. A topic the psychiatric profession has - with true irony - grossly neglected. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Reference is needed to the all-pervasive and virtually ubiquitous view that children did not deserve nor need respect (in Western cultures particularly, and notably especially in Anglophile cultures)), were innately insignificant, if not worthless, and likewise their views, experiences, and emotions were not properly matters of concern. Partly born of historically high rates of unwanted pregnancy, and infant mortality. Partly of puritanical religious and societal views. And of the caprice, injustice and brutalism so evident in everyday life. But mostly of prejudice, and condescension. This eased gradually post World War 2, but did not change greatly until the 1980s.
2. The focus on 'mother', 'maternal', indeed 'parent', is now recognised as an archetypal example of mindlessly blind prejudice, with no sound basis in reason. It is now accepted a child requires emotional nurture; the gender or familial role, or any other attribute of the nurturer is utterly immaterial. The issue is one of emotional development and deprivation. Other considerations, and terms such as 'mother', 'maternal' and 'parent', have no relevance to the topic per se.
3. Bowlby and his successors, for all their good work, altogether overlooked the worst category of emotional deprivation, namely abject deprivation (or privation), the physically present but emotionally absent nurturer [sic], doubtless because of the innate difficulties identifying and studying the type. Thus no account or exposition was given of the child given no emotional nurture, despite it very commonly occurring. Though less common today, it is nevertheless extant, and not unusual. And remains very little studied. The 'mother as madonna' myth is incredibly resistant to moderation. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)