↓ Skip to main content

DISORGANIZATION, FEAR AND ATTACHMENT: WORKING TOWARDS CLARIFICATION

Overview of attention for article published in Infant Mental Health Journal, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
DISORGANIZATION, FEAR AND ATTACHMENT: WORKING TOWARDS CLARIFICATION
Published in
Infant Mental Health Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/imhj.21689
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robbie Duschinsky

Abstract

In 1990, M. Main and J. Solomon introduced the procedures for coding a new "disorganized" infant attachment classification for the Ainsworth Strange Situation procedure (M.D.S. Ainsworth, M. Blehar, E. Waters, & S. Wall, 1978). This classification has received a high degree of interest, both from researchers and from child welfare and clinical practitioners. Disorganized attachment has primarily been understood through the lens of E. Hesse and M. Main's concept of "fright without solution," taken to mean that an infant experiences a conflict between a desire to approach and flee from a frightening parent when confronted by the Strange Situation. Yet, looking back, it can be observed that the way Hesse and Main's texts were formulated and read has generated confusion; there have been repeated calls in recent years for renewed theory and clarification about the relationship between disorganization and fear. Responding to these calls, this article revisits the texts that introduced the idea of fright without solution, clarifying their claims through articulating more precisely the different meanings of the term fear. This clarified account will then be applied to consideration of pathways to infant disorganized behaviors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 24%
Unspecified 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 48%
Unspecified 6 24%
Social Sciences 4 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,326,751
of 13,227,876 outputs
Outputs from Infant Mental Health Journal
#108
of 563 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,339
of 383,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infant Mental Health Journal
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,227,876 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 563 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 383,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.