Talk:Michael Rutter

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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. DPetersontalk 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: I also deleted "Professor" from the first sentence, per WP:CREDENTIAL.--Biologos (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Sir Michael Rutter NOT Michael Rutter 

message: 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion note 

message: # Michael Rutter#Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Third opinion needed! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Please do not accuse others of what you are guilty yourself

message: 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
HelloAnnyong (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)
thread_title: Fainites3

message: 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done. 

message: # Talk:Michael Rutter# Child Psychology - Need THIRD OPINION 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)
replies: text: 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well somebody needs to deal with it HA. Fainites barley 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Further clarification needed 

message: 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;-
# Talk:Michael Rutter# Child Psychology - Need THIRD OPINION 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.  
# Talk:Michael Rutter#Child Psychology - Need THIRD OPINION 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its four. You, me, Vassanya and JeanMercer. Fainites barley 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fainites, Are you now claiming the article in question is original research (OR)? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Replacement of OR

message: 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)
thread_title: Re 1995 paper

message: 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 J. (1993) John Bowlby & Attachment Theory. Routledge. pp. 49-53.   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)
thread_title: Great Edit

message: 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)
thread_title: self-published tag

message: 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)
thread_title: self-published tag2

message: 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)
thread_title: Monotropy

message: 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)
thread_title: Monotropy2

message: 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)
thread_title: Monotropy3

message: how about this?  or this  ? Fainites barley 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the latter. More formal so less opportunity to filibuster. Fainites barley 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Dispute resolution

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title:  Hayes, monotropy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Aha! A secondary source

message: 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)
thread_title: CV