↓ Skip to main content

The emergence of the disorganized/disoriented (D) attachment classification, 1979–1982.

Overview of attention for article published in History of Psychology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
The emergence of the disorganized/disoriented (D) attachment classification, 1979–1982.
Published in
History of Psychology, February 2015
DOI 10.1037/a0038524
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robbie Duschinsky

Abstract

This article examines the emergence of the concept of infant disorganized/disoriented attachment, drawing on published and archival texts and interviews. Since this new classification was put forward by Main and Solomon (1986), "disorganized/disoriented attachment" has become an important concept in clinical and social intervention contexts. Yet whereas Main and Solomon have often been misunderstood to have introduced disorganized/disoriented attachment in order to produce an exhaustive, categorical system of infant classifications, this article will suggest quite a different account. Attention will be paid to the emergence of disorganized attachment as a classification out of results and reflections in the late 1970s regarding the limits of an alarmed infant's capacities for maintaining behavioral and attentional avoidance. In contrasting this interpretation of Main and Solomon's work with current, widespread misunderstandings, the article will critically examine tendencies that have supported the reification and misapplication of the concept of disorganized/disoriented attachment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Brazil 1 1%
China 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 89 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Researcher 9 9%
Other 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 65 68%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Unspecified 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 6 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 June 2015.
All research outputs
#7,848,886
of 13,019,992 outputs
Outputs from History of Psychology
#129
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,298
of 215,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from History of Psychology
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,019,992 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 215,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.