Attachment Theory Essay

Attachment Therapy (AT) is a mental health intervention used for maltreated, foster-care children with unhealthy attachment issues. AT practitioners characterize these issues as “attachment disorder.” AT diverges from traditional attachment theory and practice, and was implicated in the deaths of two children (Mercer, 2002).
Unlike traditional attachment theory, which pinpoints lack of parental sensitivity, environmental stability, and responsiveness to a child’s physical and emotional needs as reasons for attachment issues, AT theory claims that suppressed rage is the cause. Rage theory has only been tested in clinical observation, rather than science, and is not backed by traditional attachment researchers (Chaffin et al., 2006).
Not only is the theory behind AT unscientific, the disorder AT claims to treat, “attachment disorder,” is not in the DSM, and lacks real definition. Instead, what exists is a “mixed-bag” of contradictory symptoms (e.g., children lack empathy, but understand people enough to be capable of manipulating them). Making matters worse are the treatments used to address “attachment disorder.” These

treatments involve physical and aggressive means, including forced holding and eye contact, knuckling, licking, being held down by several adults (rebirthing), re-parenting, and forcing children to express hate toward their biological parents (Advocates for Children in Therapy, n.d.).
In stark contrast, traditional attachment studies have scientifically shown that behavioral approaches teaching positive parenting skills, improving the parent-child relationship, and overall, approaching the child in a nurturing way, is most effective in treating attachment issues.

Moreover, research indicates that releasing rage increases levels of anger toward others. There is no scientific evidence that revisiting unconscious traumatic events, or experiencing catharsis is effective (Chaffin et al., 2006). Lastly, existing AT research suffers serious bias, i.e., “affirming the consequent.” It assumes that if the independent variable (e.g., failure to attach) causes a change in the dependent variable (e.g., lack of eye contact) then the opposite is also true. AT’s flawed logic would then recommend forced eye contact as treatment (Mercer,

2002).
To summarize, AT rejects well-supported, scientific research in traditional attachment theory and treatments in favor of unsupported, unscientific theory and controversial (even, fatal) treatments (Mercer, 2002). Attachment issues should be a significant concern for professionals working with maltreated children (Chaffin et al., 2006). Educating the public and discontinuing AT education are an important first step in rooting out AT (Mercer, 2002).