Here is an example of my point. Bruce Pennington's celebrated book "The Development of Psychopathology" is, obviously, a developmentally focused book. In this 2002 publication of more than 350 pages he writes less than one paragraph about attachment theory:
"There has also been considerbale research on the social effects of having a depressed caregive, much of it based on attachment theory. There is indeed considerable evidence that parent-child interactions are compromised when a parent is depressed. For instance, in familieis with a depressed parent, there is more parental discord and parental hostility directed toward children. In interaction with their infacts, depressed mothers exhibit less positive affect, and are more critical and less attuned than are nondepressed mothers. Attachment theory posits that both self-concept and models for interpersoanl interactions are based on early interactions with a primary caregiver. Thus, both of theses factors are hypothesized to be altered in a permanent way when children interact with a depressed caregiver, thereby increasing the risk for depression. However, as plausible as this pathway to depression may be, there is not yet direct causal evidence for it. Children of depressed parents are undoubtedly at greater risk for depression, but some of that increased risk is mediated genetically. We need genetically sensitive designs, such as adoption studies, to measure depressed parents' social transmission of depression. Moreover, the environmental risk posed by a depressed parent may operate in ways other than changing the attachment relation, such as by increasing stress..."
Sorry for that long quote, but in the context of an entire book on the development of psychopathology, it is really embarassingly short. Where is the work of the 30 year Minnesota Study with Sroufe's contributions based largely on attachment assessments? I know the summary book of Minnesota Study had not yet been published, but many studies had been.
Sometimes I feel very lonely in this contemporary world of EBTs, CBT, and hyper-focus on genetics. Yes, it is so much more "clean" and "tidy" to ignore stuff like attachment, object relations, internal working models, and interpersonal development, but we miss the person. For example, the Pennington quote above only refers to depression. People today have anxiety or depression. Very few clinicians want to nuance those descriptions. Each diagnosis has appropriate EBTs and medications, so why should we understand more about a person's problems than that label? Attachment theory nuances our understandings of patients. The pendulum has swung too much after the rebellion against psychodynamics in the 60s/70s.
