This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a01:cb0c:cd:d800:ece6:94f5:979c:9b12 (talk) at 15:51, 14 July 2022 (→"If I take a 1-year-old child who is securely attached, and the parents die and the child is adopted by a cruel foster parent, that child is in trouble. Their secure attachment is useless. When you think about it, it's silly that after the first year you could predict with any confidence what this person is going to be like": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:51, 14 July 2022 by 2a01:cb0c:cd:d800:ece6:94f5:979c:9b12 (talk) (→"If I take a 1-year-old child who is securely attached, and the parents die and the child is adopted by a cruel foster parent, that child is in trouble. Their secure attachment is useless. When you think about it, it's silly that after the first year you could predict with any confidence what this person is going to be like": new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attachment theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Attachment theory is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 25, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Toolbox |
|---|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rimbaud1230. Peer reviewers: Zhaozhhan, Ruhanh, HebaTea.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
FAR needed
This article passed WP:FAC ten years ago, and is no longer in compliance with WP:WIAFA. The lead, in particular, does not comply with WP:LEAD (see the version that passed FAC). The article is over-quoted, and the TOC is no longer focused. There is a good deal of uncited text. A consistent citation style is not used. If the article cannot be brought to FA standards, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
More application of theory on adult needed
Hi, I am a student from Georgetown University in CCT program, and we are peer reviewing some articles. This is the detailed explanation for attachment theory, with clear definition, case studies and related research. The article mainly focused on the children and how theory can apply to them, including the history, the transaction from children to teenagers and the practical applications. However, I found out the article has less information of how the theory apply to adults. The article has few paragraph for Attachment styles in adults, and I think you could look for more styles or evidence in this part, such as how theory can be used in marketing and business area. Maybe you could refer to the following section, crime. That is also the application of theory in adults and it is like the attachment to the main theory, with history, and other detailed introductions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaozhhan (talk • contribs) 02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Peer review
Hi Yibo, I hope you are doing well on building this Wiki page. It is a well-written article as it is rated as a B class article. Based on my view, there are some sections that you could improve on. First, when I viewed the content, I got confused by the title of “crime”. I understood “crime” meant that the theory has been applied in the discipline of criminology. I think it would be better if the term could be clarified in the content. Also, I think it would be interesting to add sources about the theory’s development in the era that AI has been a flourishing field if there is any study that has been conducted. I hope these ideas would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhanh (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Section 4 "Attachment styles in adults" citation & reference problems
Hi all,
I'm concerned about some of the citations (or lack thereof) in section 4, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Attachment_theory#Attachment_styles_in_adults). There are several issues with the citations in this section:
1. There are uncited passages throughout the section that editorialize about the relationship between adult attachment styles and romantic relationships;
2. many citations for descriptions of cognitive & social phenomena do not reference peer-reviewed academic material, but popular and 'grey' literature (e.g. nos. 93 & 95, possibly 94); and
3. some citations are written in parenthetical format, not in standard hyperlinked footnotes.
To address these issues, I propose:
1. That uncited passages be immediately removed;
2. references to non-peer-reviewed accounts of cognitive & social psychological phenomena be removed, their respective sections revised, and these descriptions replaced with rigorous, scholarly accounts of these complex human behaviors; and
3. citations be standardized according to the (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Citing_sources).
Doing so will improve both the content of the section and its legibility; in turn, these revisions will help bring the article up to the (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Citing_sources). 173.230.164.4 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes! Thank you. Also the academic references that are cited are 30+ years old and need to be updated. Wackthedrums (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: History of Psychology
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emnguyen99, Brooksriley (article contribs).
"a hypothesis later evidenced through studies of..."
You can say that evidence was provided in favour of a hypothesis, or that argued against it or even led to its being rejected altogether. Maybe I do not properly understand what evidence means when used as a verb, but the phrasing I cited in the header sounds odd to me. Studies may support, corroborate, confirm, refute, falsify etc. a hypothesis, but not "evidence" them AFAIK. However, I am old! I think what must have happened is that students these days are reared on an ill-digested diet of Kuhn and Popper and Feyerabend and come away from this thinking that terms such as confirm and corroborate are suspect; and yet the need to say that the data point in the same direction as the hypothesis remains, so hey presto, here is to evidence, a term that the philosophers have not yet torn to shreds (it won't be long, though). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:4B8:6170:BC29:C44C (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
"If I take a 1-year-old child who is securely attached, and the parents die and the child is adopted by a cruel foster parent, that child is in trouble. Their secure attachment is useless. When you think about it, it's silly that after the first year you could predict with any confidence what this person is going to be like"
Without wanting to defend attachment theory, is this not a straw man argument? The main thrust of the theory seems to be that the earlier in life things go wrong, the more extensive its effects and ramifications will be in later stages of development. Apart from the vagueness of "wrong" this is probably a general law of biological development. Good work is quickly undone, bad work is quickly done but not easily undone - that too seems to be a general principle if not an outright platitude. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:ECE6:94F5:979C:9B12 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Categories: