# Attachment Parenting - So where's the argument? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799 "2003-11-23T04:34:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/61 "2003-11-26T22:11:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrsam \* > \*\*_There exists no study with controls for shared genes with correlates a behaviour with a parenting style. In spite of many, many attempts._ \*\* I’d be curious to hear details on the failures. ---
**Author:** ![mrsam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5ac83/32.png) [@mrsam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsam)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/62 "2003-11-26T22:17:26Z")
Harris, Judith Rich **Where Is the Child’s Environment? A Group Socialization Theory of Development.** \* Psychological Review. 102(3):458-489, July 1995.\* > [@](#): > > Behavioral Genetic Methods and Results > > Behavioral genetic studies begin by collecting data—for example, scores on personality or intelligence tests—from pairs of people. Ideally, data from two or more types of subject pairs, such as twins and adoptive siblings, are combined in the data analysis. That makes it possible to test different mathematical models, based on slightly different assumptions, to see which provides the best fit for the data. The winning model is then used to divide up the variance calculated from the test scores—the individual differences among the subjects—into three, or sometimes four, sectors. > > The first sector consists of variance that can be attributed to shared genes; this is called heritability. Heritability generally accounts for 40% to 50% of the variance in personality characteristics, if the measurements are made in adulthood (McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993; N. L. Pedersen, Plomin, Nesselroade, & McClearn, 1992; Plomin, Owen, & McGuffin, 1994). > > The second sector consists of variance that can be attributed to shared environmental influence—the home in which a given pair of people were reared. This sector is very small if the measurements are made in adulthood: from 0 to 10% in most studies (Bouchard, 1994; Loehlin, 1992; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). The implication of this finding is that resemblances between siblings are due almost entirely to shared genes. Their shared environment has not made them more alike. > > The third sector consists of measurement error, which is around 20% for personality tests (Plomin, 1990). Some analyses do not produce an estimate for this component of the variance, in which case it is included in the last sector, which consists of variance that can be attributed neither to shared genes nor to shared rearing environment (Goldsmith, 1993a). This sector of the variance is usually referred to as nonshared environmental influence, but a more accurate label for it is unexplained environmental variance. On the average, from 40% to 50% of the variance in adult personality characteristics falls into the unexplained or nonshared sector. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1994, June 17). Genes, environment, and personality. Science, 264, 1700–1701 Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1–60. ---
**Author:** ![mrsam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5ac83/32.png) [@mrsam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsam)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/63 "2003-11-26T22:29:13Z")
From one of the forerunners of socialisation research, Eleanor Maccoby: > [@](#): > > These findings imply strongly that there is very little impact of the physical environment that parents provide for children and very little impact of the parental characteristics that must be essentially the same for all children in a family: for example, education, or the quality of the relationship between the spouses. Indeed, the implications are either that parental behaviours have no effect, or that the only effective aspects of parenting must vary greatly from one child to the other within the same family. Eleanor Maccoby was a Stanford psychology professor who had spent her entire career looking for correlates between parenting and behaviour. Reference from: Maccoby and Martin, 1983 **Review of Socialisation Research** ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/64 "2003-11-26T23:07:08Z")
> [@](#): > > The second sector consists of variance that can be attributed to shared environmental influence—the home in which a given pair of people were reared. This sector is very small if the measurements are made in adulthood: from 0 to 10% in most studies (Bouchard, 1994; Loehlin, 1992; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). The implication of this finding is that resemblances between siblings are due almost entirely to shared genes. Their shared environment has not made them more alike. Any you believe this is saying that environment/parenting has no effect on personality? It’s not. All it’s saying is that from 0-10% of the variance in personality can be attributed to the environment when both subjects were raised in the **same environment**. If you read further down you’ll see: > [@](#): > > On the average, from 40% to 50% of the variance in adult personality characteristics falls into the unexplained or nonshared sector. If you’re going to quote sources, at least quote the part that is pertinent to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![mrsam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5ac83/32.png) [@mrsam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsam)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/65 "2003-11-26T23:11:28Z")
> [@](#): > > _By me_ > > The behavioural genetics data shows the **shared environment** , ie. parenting, to contribute 0-10% of personality. I believe the **non-shared environmental aspect of personality** to be brought about by the peer group, not different parenting techniques for different twins. > [@](#): > > The second sector consists of variance that can be attributed to **shared environmental influence** —the home in which a given pair of people were reared. This sector is very small if the measurements are made in adulthood: from 0 to 10% in most studies (Bouchard, 1994; Loehlin, 1992; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). The implication of this finding is that resemblances between siblings are due almost entirely to shared genes. Their shared environment has not made them more alike. > [@](#): > > On the average, from 40% to 50% of the variance in adult personality characteristics falls into the **unexplained or nonshared sector.** ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/66 "2003-11-26T23:31:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrsam \* > \*\* The behavioural genetics data shows the shared environment, ie. parenting, to contribute 0-10% of personality. I believe the non-shared environmental aspect of personality to be brought about by the peer group, not different parenting techniques for different twins. \*\* This was the quote to which I was referring. “Shared environment” does not equate to “parenting.” ---
**Author:** ![mrsam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5ac83/32.png) [@mrsam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsam)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/67 "2003-11-26T23:43:26Z")
Uhh, yes it does. If you’d read the article, the next bit goes on to show how the unshared environment does not equal parenting. > [@](#): > > Does the Family Environment Matter? > > By the time they are adults, adoptive siblings who were reared in the same home will, on average, bear no resemblance to each other in personality. Biological siblings who were reared in the same home will be somewhat more alike, but still not very similar. Even identical (monozygotic) twins reared in the same home will not be identical in personality. They will not be noticeably more alike than identical twins reared in separate homes (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990; Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Scarr, 1992). > > These are some of the findings of the field of developmental behavioral genetics. The data on which they are based consist of correlations between pairs of people who share all, some, or none of their genes, and who did or did not grow up in the same home. Two conclusions—one surprising and the other not—emerged from the analysis of such data. The unsurprising conclusion was that about half of the variance in the measured psychological characteristics was due to differences in heredity. The surprising conclusion involved the other half of the variance: Very little of it could be attributed to differences in the home environments in which the participants in these studies were reared (Loehlin & Nichols, 1976; Plomin, Chipuer, & Neiderhiser, 1994; Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Scarr, 1992)… **[edited down due to copyright concerns --Gaudere]** ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/68 "2003-11-27T02:35:15Z")
Not only is her approach to meta-analyses unsound, her arguments are fallacious. Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks so. Here is the logic: - Children raised in the same home have different personalities - Parents raise children the same way -Therefore, parents must not be an influence on children. If that’s not ridiculous enough she goes on to admit she might be wrong because parents might raise each child differently. The mind boggles. Apparently my mind isn’t the only one that boggles at her theories. From a review of her book (on her own site): > [@](#): > > There is, first, the question of the author’s credentials. Judith Rich Harris is not only a nonacademic but a failed academic, having been dismissed from Harvard’s graduate program 30 years ago on the grounds that she was unlikely to produce original research. In the decades after leaving Harvard, she had, as she herself puts it, “no mentors and no students,” was bound to her home by a lingering illness, and maintained her link to the professional world as a writer of textbooks in developmental psychology. “She is what journalists call a `rewrite man,’” John Leo wrote in a highly critical piece on her book in U.S. News & World Report, “an unknown with no credentials.”[\*\*] > > The response from a number of leading psychologists has been exceptionally harsh. According to Newsweek, which ran a cover story on the book, Harvard’s Jerome Kagan is “embarrassed for psychology” by The Nurture Assumption, and T. Berry Brazelton finds its thesis “absurd.” “My first reaction,” said Urie Bronfenbrenner, professor emeritus at Cornell, “is amazement that this book should be taken seriously.” Quite a few psychologists have damned Harris not only for her lack of credentials but for being derivative to boot. In the New York Review of Books, Howard Gardner, the theorist of multiple intelligence, called her book “overstated, misleading, and potentially harmful.” From what I can gather from the rest of the review she is guilty of an Argument from Ignorance: There is no evidence for P; therefore, not P She does find fault with studies that do show a correlation between environment and behavior citing lack of controls or lack of proof of causality. Fine, I’m not surprised. Just because environment hasn’t been proven to influence behavior doesn’t mean it doesn’t influence behavior. Even so, her arguments appear to be mostly critical of study design. I’ve said just about all I’m going to say on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/69 "2003-11-27T02:47:22Z")
In short, what mrsam is trying to say is that it really doesn’t matter WHAT sort of parent you are as long as your not actively being a bad parent. Even apathetic parenting seems to produce roughly the same results as the most devout adherents of AP in the long run so why bother. While theres nothing wrong with telling parents to co-sleep or breast feed, theres correspondingly nothing wrong with telling depression patients to look at aquamarine for 3 hours a day. This does not a valid theory make unfortunately. The studies he cited studied 4 groups of people: 1. People with shared environment and shared genes (identical twins living under the same household) 2. People with shared environment and different genes (adopted children living in the same household) 3. People with different environment and shared genes (identical twins split up from birth) 4. People with different environment and unshared genes (completely random pairings, the control group). Based on statistical data from these studies, researchers have found that people groups 1/3 and 2/4 have a roughly 50% correlation and groups 1/2 and 3/4 only have a roughly 10% correlation at most in terms of personality. The rest of the 40% is **unaccounted for** and is merely the random variations that every human has. However, the fact that people living in the same household \*\* tend to be about as different to each other as random people on the street if you remove the genetic factors\*\* is something extremely telling and something that many people fail to comprehend fully. btw: mrsam, I believe that your quoted piece falls rather far outside of the board’s fair use policy. Please do not quote entire chunks of the article verboten, rather, pluck out select paragraphs and summarise the rest. ---
**Author:** ![mrsam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5ac83/32.png) [@mrsam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsam)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/70 "2003-11-27T10:44:35Z")
That particular article won the APA George A. Miller award for best article. Here’s a [cite](http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct98/peers.html) from the APA website which demonstrates that. Ad hominem attacks are rather baseless given that, don’t you think? Thankyou, **Shamanese**. That’s basically what I was trying to say. Upon re-reading the registration agreement I see I have clearly infringed the board policy, so could a mod please edit out my llast post? ---
**Author:** ![hedra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/779978/32.png) [@hedra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hedra)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/71 "2003-12-01T19:06:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Just how young can the caregiver be, then? Would it be acceptable to you to explain the rhesus monkey and concentration camp examples in terms as reciprocity of care-giving in the infants? No idea, technically - probably no research, at least that I’ve seen, to back this up - it would be unethical to set it up that way. But the caregiving in the existing samples would also have to be analyzed for the mechanics of the process to be certain. Basically, the process of attachment is the key, not the person. So if someone is responsive, shows reflective facial expression, responds in an attached way, I’d think it would do exactly the same thing - the neurobiology suggests that the patterns and processes are key. Who does them is not key. Technically, infants could do it with one another, because who knows of infants that do not cry when another cries, and do not laugh when another laughs, etc.? We’re wired for positive attachment initially, and it takes disruption to, well, disrupt it. > [@](#): > > What is now unclear to me is the distinction between attachment and the development of a dyadic sociocognitive module. Are these two things appreciably different, or are they the same? You’d have to ask someone who knows what a dyadic sociocognitive module is. However, from winging it, it seems to me that this is incorporated into current attachment theory, at least as far as terminology (you’ll see frequent mentions of mother-infant ‘dyads’ at least, in the research). Not the same thing, perhaps, in the research, but included. Most of the current attachment theory seems to be building on the synthetic science approach - that is, these things are all part of the same process, just different facets, and can be integrated in a single approach to the development of the human mind. But thats a WAG, truly. > [@](#): > > My remaining gripe is the situation where a baby is raised with peers but without parents. The evidence suggests that this is far worse than being raised without peers but with a mother. While I’m aware that adoptees suffer attachment problems, this seems to me as a result of the transient relationships they experience causing social difficulties rather than the absence of an attachment with a caregiver figure. I don’t think that this has been sufficiently researched as a separate issue to be argued one way or the other, completely. It may have to do with the risk that an adult will be less responsive, less true to the wiring (so to speak) than peers will be. That the parent alone has risk through their lifespan experience that the peers do not. More likely, the parent alone has depression because they themselves are deprived of the relationships they are now developmentally wired to expect. Depression in the adult is highly damaging in the offspring, because of the very serious impact it has on reflective behavior and attachment behavior. Being raised by a depressed parent is far worse than being raised by non-depressed peers. As for it being the same as intuition. Again, same as your intuition, same as mine, and not at all the same as many many many others, especially those who were raised in abusive, detached, depressed, dissociated, or toxic conditions. It makes fundamental sense to you. Same to me. And others think it is absurd to not force compliance through physical punishment, think that responding to an infant under 6 months of age will ‘spoil’ it, and spending time face-to-face with your child is a huge waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/72 "2003-12-01T20:51:17Z")
I don’t consider myself AP and I generally dislike the whole idea of “child-centered parenting” that gets discussed. I have 3 kids, ages 6, 4, and 21 months. I’m 7 months pregnant with #4. Although I did much of the details of what is called AP, I don’t think of myself as following the philosophy. I nursed all my kids, they slept with my for about the fist 3-4 months, I carried them around a lot as infants (although not it a sling, I could never get the hang of using one). My main problem is the Sears (and other’s) idea of parenting being **child centered**. My personal child rearing philosophy is **family centered**. When my baby is born in mid-January, he will be born into a family with 3 brothers and sisters. He will have to share my time and attention. I will not come running every time he cries, because I am often in the middle of doing something else. Reading his sister a book, giving his brother a bath, or even catching up on my own sleep. Of course at first as a newborn he can’t understand the idea of waiting. But it doesn’t take long for them to realize that mommy can’t come right now, but will come soon. I also find it hypocritical that most AP books one the one hand call for nursing as long as mom and baby find it mutually desireable, and then on the next page say it should be baby-led weaning. I find this duality rampant in many APers. They give a lot of lip service to giving mom space, but the practical advice is such that the baby’s needs and wants come first, second and third, and the mother’s are somewhere around twenty-first in priority. I started out my mothering career thinking I would be very AP, but most of the literature and the proponant of it were so extreme that I got turned off. I am grateful for many of the ideas of AP, I think they have contributed a lot to the dialog of what makes a good parent. By the way, as I type this my 21 month old daughter is sitting on my lap playing with my hair and snuggling me. We are very attached. ---
**Author:** ![hedra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/779978/32.png) [@hedra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hedra)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/73 "2003-12-01T21:44:42Z")
autz - good point on the nursing/weaning thing. That’s another area where **METHOD** and **PHILOSOPHY** get confused. And certainly, Dr. Sears’ site is, IMHO, a lot about method. I’m all about the philosophy. I go to his site to explore tools to try for different situations. I don’t go there to learn how to be a parent. The philosophy says that we raise our kids in non-violent, attachment-aware ways. But that doesn’t mean that you have to suffer as the mom, either. And the philosophy does not say ‘child-centric’, either. It is more ‘anti parent-centric’, which still leaves room for family-centric. But parents, in general, are very prone to forming ‘camps’, and a great many of them lose sight of what, exactly, they are supporting (and get hung up on the details of what worked for them that should therefore be gospel to everyone else). The child-centric exclusive focus ad nauseum, is, IMHO, a corruption of AP, or an extension of lack of complete understanding of the underlying principles. People get focussed on ‘doing it right’, and lose sight of the changes that have to be made over time, or of the differences between kids and environments, resources, abilities, etc. Like you, I am very child-centric in infancy, because the infant has no recourse. I am very family-centric in general, because attachment is multi-factored - my other kid(s), my husband, other relatives, all play their roles. All of that has to be maintained, and sometimes something else is going to have to give. The process is where the details flex, where one parent doesn’t use a sling, another uses daycare, another night-weans, someone else never breastfeeds at all, and people go from don’t-offer/don’t refuse management of extended nursing all the way to intentionally dropping feeds because they are done, even if the child is not, and nursing is a dyad experience, not a solo one. But the real application of the method is not in ‘always nursing until the child self-weans’ but ‘when weaning is done as a parent-led process, it is done with an awareness that the child is an emotional being, and choices are made that respect that and honor it, even if they do not necessarily cater to it.’ And if you cannot come right away when a child needs you, you say so, and talk to them about what is going on, or explain the situation, or give them some kind of response that suggests that you recognize their emotional truth as much as they functional truth that you could not get there when they wanted, for whatever reason. Truly, parents who have normal attachment processes to start with typically use attachment parenting principles and philosophy fairly automatically, and tend to shift away from it only under pressure (stress, frustration, etc.). We talk to the baby who is crying beyond our reach, rather than just ignoring it while it cries. We respond with empathy, even when we can’t make it better or do what the baby wants. We respect the feelings involved. Plenty of people who call themselves AP are actually inserting a few AP-approved practices into an existing philosophy of their own, often one that involves sacrifice of the mother’s life/expectations/goals for the sake of her kids. That’s where I see the mom comes 21st and baby is 1-18 on the priority list, FOR LIFE. But the forums I post on, you’ll get plenty of ‘I cannot stand this, how do I change it while respecting my child’s underlying needs’ - like, ‘I’m pregnant, and cannot cosleep anymore because my son keeps waking me and I barely sleep as it is. How do I get him into his own bed with a minimum of trauma on both our parts?’ That’s an AP question. And the answers vary, from gradual weaning to the new location, to rewards, to getting the child invested in the new space/location, to gradual movement to a new bed in the same room, and yes, also ‘wait it out, it will get better, hang in there and don’t move him if it isn’t working out’. But there’s nobody there saying that the last option is the only option, and far more people saying ‘keep trying things until you find one that works for both of you.’ Family-centric. Philosophy, not cookie-cutter method. ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/74 "2003-12-01T23:09:41Z")
**hedra** , I’m very interested in the forums of which you speak. I know people are sometimes skittish about posting links to other boards because of the history of occasional “board wars,” but would you be willing either to post or to email me the information? ---
**Author:** ![hedra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/779978/32.png) [@hedra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hedra)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/75 "2003-12-02T13:49:19Z")
I emailed you with full details. The main one is StorkNet (paid site, have to register and pay before you can read/post). There are a few other SDMB members there, too. ---
**Author:** ![moonovercity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7feea3/32.png) [@moonovercity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moonovercity)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799/76 "2003-12-03T01:48:11Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by fessie \* The thing about co-sleeping that surprised me is the argument that SIDS might be reduced by sharing the parents’ bed. See this site for some convincing arguments that co-sleeping is actually safer than crib sleeping: [http://www.mothering.com/9-0-0/html/9-4-0/kimmel.shtml](http://www.mothering.com/9-0-0/html/9-4-0/kimmel.shtml) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attachment-parenting-so-wheres-the-argument/214799.md?page=3)