Parental mentalizing profiles : When distinct patterns of verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing profiles are associated with different effects on infant attachment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the last 50 years, researchers have been intrigued by uncovering mechanisms involved in the development of parent-child attachment security. Contemporary researchers have identified parental mentalizing as an important contributor of child attachment security. Although empirical studies and a meta-analysis have highlighted the role played by parental mentalizing on child attachment, most of the research thus far has focused on verbal and explicit processes involved in parental mentalizing. To deepen understanding the role played by parental mentalizing, some researchers have recently been interested in the relative contributions of these two dimensions, verbal (i.e., mind-mindedness) and nonverbal (i.e., parental embodied mentalizing, PEM) parental mentalizing. Current studies tend to support the unique role played by verbal and nonverbal dimensions particularly on infant attachment security. However, how verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing interact with one another on the individual level, and subsequently, how they relate to the parent-infant attachment relationship remains largely unknown. Using a person-centered approach, this study aimed to identify verbal and nonverbal mentalizing profiles and their associations with infant attachment (security and disorganization). Based on longitudinal studies from three different countries (Canada, United Kingdom, and Israel), the sample of this study included 412 mothers-infant dyads. Mind-mindedness (verbal) and PEM (nonverbal) were assessed based on observations made during a 15-minutes mother-infant interactions free play interactions when the infants were 6 to 8 months old according to two distinct observational procedures. Infant attachment security and disorganized were measured using The Strange Situation Procedure at 16 months. Through latent profile analyses, three distinct profiles based on verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing profiles were identified (low consistent, high consistent, and inconsistent). Results showed that the low consistent profile, compared to high consistent or inconsistent one, had distinct associations regarding infant attachment security. Infant whose parents were in the low consistent-profile present more disorganization compared to high consistent-profile. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore parental mentalizing profile based on verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing and their associations with infant attachment. Our results thus highlight the importance of considering both aspects parental mentalization within the parent-infant relationship.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».