CLICK HERE FOR RESEARCH: Professor Michael Lamb is the Fellow and Director of Studies at Sidney SussexCollege and the Editor of the Journal of Psychology, Public Policy and Law. He is one the world's leading authorities on attachment theory for infants and child development, especially in terms of the benefits for children in developing close bonds to both of their parents.
Whilst much of John Bowlby's work on attachment has been verified and is applicable today, his views on monotropism, where he believed a child mainly attaches only to one primary caregiver, has been rejected by the scientific community.
Dr Jennifer McIntosh has become a renowned detractor of shared parenting and appears to have abused an opportunity afforded to her within a Special Review of the Family Court Review.
Professor Lamb rebukes McIntosh's performance in the editorial:
"The Family Court Review Special Issue, edited by McIntosh, provided a misleadingly narrow view of attachment theory and of previous attempts to explore the implications of that theory and related research for family court professionals. She thus represented Bowlby’s notion of monotropy as though it was an established and accepted fact; neither the research (which shows the idea to be incorrect) nor Bowlby’s own later disavowal of the idea were addressed, although the implications are profound. More generally, the extensive relevant scholarship was ignored and unrepresented, leaving the unchallenged focus on the editor’s own research and on opinions that accord with her own."
The Professor reveals and criticises how Dr Jennifer McIntosh abused her opportunity to edit the special edition of Family Court Review in July 2011. He writes: ".....the FCR special issue under review was dominated by a large number of interviews conducted by the issue editor with people sharing her convictions about attachment research and its implications for parenting plans. Strikingly, none of the interviewees reported new findings or commented thoughtfully on some of the controversial claims and counterclaims that have impeded progress in making attachment theory relevant to the everyday dilemmas being addressed by family courts around the world.
"As a result, the special issue was truly extraordinary, with only two conventional scholarly articles published alongside the transcripts of a series of interviews steered by a special issue editor who saw no need to include dissenting views. This risked misleading professionals who are accustomed to balanced arguments in Family Court Review and might thus mistakenly conclude that there were no alternative extant views of the attachment literature.
"the special issue provided a platform for one viewpoint rather than providing a forum within which a number of scholars could present and discuss research and theory thoroughly and thoughtfully.....In fact, where possibly discrepant views emerged in the interviews, the issues were dropped rather than engaged.
"As a result, readers could well conclude (by virtue of having been misled by Dr McIntosh)* that monotropy was a well-established fact.
"When Bowlby first referred speculatively to monotropy in the middle of the last century, of course, there was no relevant empirical research. However, over the ensuing decades, researchers have actually studied the formation of attachments to both mothers and fathers. All of the relevant research, as reviewed most recently by Lamb and Lewis (in press), suggests that infants in fact form attachments to fathers and mothers at the same time, rather than sequentially.
"For an archival scholarly journal, this was a glaring omission, particularly damaging to the journal’s reputation as a forum for balanced, scholarly presentations."
Professor Lamb's Advice for family law professionals:
Key Points for the Family Court Community:
- Most children in two-parent families form attachments to both of their parents at the same stage in their development.
- Relationships with both their mother and father profoundly affect children’s adjustment, whether or not they live together.
- Professionals need to be careful when generalising from research which may have involved families in circumstances quite unlike those experienced by the individuals they are trying to assist.
*added by blog owner
