Part of the appeal of attachment language is that it feels near to our everyday experience, as terms like ‘attachment’, ‘security’ or ‘disorganisation’ feel readily recognisable. Yet, not one of these terms is used by academic attachment researchers in line with ordinary language. This has hindered the evidence-based use of attachment in practice, the feedback loop from practice to research and the dialogue between attachment researchers in developmental psychology and in social psychology. This paper pinpoints the difficulties arising from the existence of multiple versions of ‘attachment theory’ that use exactly the same terms, held by communities that assume that they are referring to the same thing and with little infrastructure to help them discover otherwise. When we talk past one another, the different communities with a stake in knowledge of attachment are obstructed from genuinely learning from one another, drawing on their respective strengths and pursuing collaborations. One factor contributing to this situation has been the use of attachment terminology with technical meanings, but often without setting out clear definitions. We here introduce a guide to attachment terminology used by the academic community, which has recently been published on the website of the Society for Emotion and Attachment Studies. The guide is meant for researchers, clinicians and everyone concerned with attachment to increase understanding of the technical meaning of important terminology used by researchers, and support the quality of discussions between researchers, and between researchers and clinicians and other publics.

中文翻译：

---

编辑观点：关于澄清附件术语的必要性

依恋语言的部分吸引力在于它感觉接近我们的日常经验，因为像“依恋”、“安全”或“瓦解”这样的术语感觉很容易识别。然而，这些术语中没有一个被学术依恋研究人员按照日常语言使用。这阻碍了依恋在实践中的循证使用、从实践到研究的反馈循环以及发展心理学和社会心理学中依恋研究者之间的对话。本文指出了“依恋理论”的多个版本的存在所带来的困难，这些版本使用完全相同的术语，这些版本的社区认为它们指的是同一件事，并且几乎没有基础设施来帮助他们发现其他情况。当我们互相谈论时，与执着知识利害关系的不同群体就无法真正相互学习、利用各自的优势并寻求合作。造成这种情况的一个因素是使用具有技术含义的依恋术语，但通常没有明确的定义。我们在此介绍一份学术界使用的依恋术语指南，该指南最近发布在情绪与依恋研究学会的网站上。该指南适用于研究人员、临床医生和所有与依恋有关的人，以增进对研究人员使用的重要术语的技术含义的理解，并支持研究人员之间以及研究人员与临床医生和其他公众之间的讨论质量。