Arly, Some of your questions can be answered by reading about the
classic ways "attachment security" is measured. The gold standard
(flawed though it is) is the Strange Situation, eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ainsworth#A_Strange_Situation.
Researchers can choose whatever group of individuals and families
they want to look at. If breastfeeding was not specified, you know
they included bottlefeeding families, unfortunately.
I wrote a chapter on "Psychosocial Consequences of Not Breastfeeding"
(with 50+ references) in my dissertation on breastfeeding policy. I
can email it to you directly.
I think it's very interesting stuff. You can see there were only a
few studies (at that time in 2007, at least) which focussed directly
on breastfeeding and attachment, but they all conclude that there is
a positive correlation.
A couple of studies also investigated the direction of causality
between attachment and breastfeeding. They concluded that it goes
both ways, ie, more attchment-engengering moms choose to breastfeed,
but in addition, the act of breastfeeding itself causes mothers to be
more attachment-engendering.
Tina
At 10:11 AM -0700 10,13,2009, Arly wrote:
>Questions:
>
>A) Do the classic attachment studies (such as the one by Lamb cited
>below) specifically exclude formula feeding families as not normal
>by definition? Have they conducted separate studies for formula
>feeding families, for families w/stay at home mothers, stay at home
>fathers, and for families in which no one gets to stay at home?
>
>B) Which behaviors under what circumstances are selected as
>"attachment behavior measures" when observing a normal breastfeeding
>family?
>
>C) What exactly is meant by "no preference"? In what context?
>
>If anyone on Lactnet, or respected by Lactnetters, has addressed
>these specific questions, I would like to get in contact. I am
>particularly wondering if anyone has done their graduate research
>specifically focusing on the differences in attachment between
>breastfeeding and formula feeding families, with a review of the
>existing literature.
>
>Arly Helm, MS, IBCLC
>-----------
>Lamb's landmark longitudinal study* of mother-*infant* and
>father-*infant* *attachment* was begun in 1974 to try to categorize^
>the unique components of father-*infant* *attachment*. Home
>observations^ of 7-, 8-, 12-, and 13-month-old *infant*s _revealed
>no preference^ for either parent on *attachment* behavior measures._
>
>*[*Lamb ME The development of mother-*infant* and father-*infant*
>*attachment*s in the second year of life. /Dev Psychol./ 1977;
>13:637-648]*
>
> ***********************************************
>
>Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
>To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
>Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
>COMMANDS:
>1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an
>email: set lactnet nomail
>2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
>3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
>4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|