There appears to be a lot of confounding in the studies of well-being vs. attachment level. An alternate explanation for the well-being of the better attached children is that these children had interactive and present parents. Children that have lost their parents somehow may not have the same level of well-being as their peers. Also, parents could be abusive, which would more likely to hurt well-being than to aid it. There are a large number of other factors that could contribute to the well-being of a child.
I agree with the above statement. Children that have experienced absent or abusive parents and also don't have other positive adult influences their lives suffer from social anxiety and lack of communication skills. They have not been fit with the experience and/or skills to navigate society and interactions with others. Children raised without human interaction like the "games" presented in part 1 can be forced into reclusive and often times outcast roles. Due to these outcast roles not always willingly taken up by the children, their level of well-being is below that of their peers.
These probably would affect the well-being (social) of a child later on in life, but I believe that at least a relationship between your independent variables and attachment can be drawn.
less attentive parents -> less attachment -> less social well-being abusive parents -> less attachment -> less social well-being
For the first one, it's hard to develop a secure attachment to parents when they are absent. The animals raised in isolation (in the book) had no opportunity to develop attachment and suffered in social well-being For the second, it is probable that it is difficult for a child to develop attachment when that child already has fear for the parents. The fear can be a indicator of well-being, but it does not discount the possibility of attachment affecting social well-being, in fact, it freely allows the correlation (but not causation) to happen.
I agree, I think that there are way too many factors present to be able to reasonably evaluate the correlation between children's attachment and subsequent well-being. In my explanation I focused on the positive impact of parents, however I agree with your point that parents that are absent or unloving can contribute to the well-being, regardless of attachment. - Marla Singer
I agree with this. Depending on the presence of the individual, the child's attachment level could vary. Both of the arguments here are well-based and present a possible alternative theory to this issue.
walawala
-- Edited by 102intro on Wednesday 4th of November 2009 09:09:03 AM
