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