This finding is also stressing me out. My son is 2 1/2 years old. Did I love him enough in his first year? Any way for me to tell? The article seems light on such details.
> This finding is also stressing me out. My son is 2 1/2 years old. Did I love him enough in his first year? Any way for me to tell?
(Educational scientist here, psychology was part of my studies. I'm not a psychologist, though.)
Don't stress yourself. If you're loving your kid and are able to physically show it, e.g. you're able to cuddle your son, hold him when something bad happened etc., then you have the first major factor in check. You should be the calm and readily available ressource for emotional warmth if the kid needs it.
The second factor is consistency: Identical child behaviour should produce identical parental reactions. E.g. "Look dad, I built something awesome!" shouldn't generate a "Oh great!" on day one and "I don't want to see that crap, I'm tired from work" on day two. The same goes for negative behavior. That makes it easier for the child to grasp the external actions as results of own behavior, thus easing the development of self-efficacy.
It's perfectly fine to be stressed out from work, BTW! It should just be clear for the kid that this is not the kid's fault.
The difference with helicopter parents: It's perfectly fine for the kid to throw a tantrum if it's not getting that muffin just before lunch. If your reasoning is rational and consistent, it's fine to enforce that calmly. And it's fine for the kid to be pissed. It's perfectly fine for the kid to do risky things on the playground. If the kid hurts itself, comfort it, and that's it.
If you are filling your son's developmental needs[0] well enough and consistently enough, he will turn out just fine. Parenting isn't rocket science, specific behaviors have specific results and we actually know a lot about "what are the right behaviors?"
By the way, at 2 1/2 years old, any "bad parenting" that your son received can still be corrected by adjusting your behavior accordingly. Insecure attachment is simply caused by the child not trusting the caregiver enough, so none of it is "set in stone", trust can always be earned through consistency.
In addition to reading the linked article below (highly recommended), maybe you could also sign up to take an attachment test with your child? Not sure exactly how this works, but it would give you honest feedback.
You can also look through this guide on "how to raise nurtured children"[1] and see if anything interests you.
Not if the parents educate themselves on good parenting, which few do.
"Solid trials" would only confirm what the article I linked is saying. Have you checked it out? Today's parents can't afford to wait for studies that won't exist for decades more.
If you weren't abusive or neglectful, they'll probably be fine. Let's say you were a little bit distant and distracted and they end up a little bit 'avoidant'. That means they're not going to rely on other people for emotional support when they're feeling down. That doesn't mean they're going to be emotionally crippled for the rest of their life.
Attachment research is full of problems, and I see it as irresponsible for the NY Times to present this area in this way.
Here's the problem: typically, attachment theory and research is focused on a dyadic-level variable as if it's disentangled from the individual-level variables that are part of that dyad. At some level, it's fine to talk about system concepts, but a dyad only has two parts, so focusing on the parts is very tractable.
Why is this a problem? Because a lot of phenomena that are really about the child, or the parent, get folded into some nebulous concept at the dyad level. It's a form of formal hand-waving that allows you to avoid hard questions about who is contributing what to a relationship by simply ignoring the distinction. "Attachment styles" is no better, because now you're just talking about a personality trait as it manifests in a relationship context.
There's more tangible problems with this area of research too, because it almost never sufficiently controls for (1) background genetic and environmental variables together, and (2) individual-level variables that might better account for "attachment".
To be clear, I am not saying that there's no such thing as bad parenting, or that it's all about the child, or that parents don't have any effect. I'm also not even saying that people don't feel attached, or that there aren't relationship-level phenomena. I'm only saying that attachment theory as it currently exists is very problematic theoretically and methodologically. Criticizing such research is politically very unpopular (because doing so leads you to be cast as anti-child or anti-family), so the field persists.
It's very much in the same ballpark as psychoanalytic theories in the 60s: something that is fundamentally flawed, but has a kernel of truth, so becomes ubiquitous.
My advice is to approach your child as a parent, as you think best under whatever circumstances you find yourself in, and don't worry about attachment--it's an epiphenomenon.
It seems clear there is an observed phenomenon of attachment, with several different basic possible values, and important consequences for later living.
Your remarks seem to focus on the question of what causes the observed variation, and you point out there are various factors, including the temperament of both the infant and the parent, and the larger environment, that are important for attachment.
I am thinking that is correct, but I find it hard to believe that the parenting skills the parent learned from his or her parent are not usually also quite important.
That matters because it implies that parents ought to be trained in attachment skills, and that when there is a problem with attachment there is a good chance training could help. Would you agree?
