Attachment security and disorganization in maltreating and high-risk families: A series of meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current meta-analytic study examined the differential impact of maltreatment and various socioeconomic risks on attachment security and disorganization. Fifty-five studies with 4,792 children were traced, yielding 59 samples with nonmaltreated high-risk children (n = 4,336) and 10 samples with maltreated children (n = 456). We tested whether proportions of secure versus insecure (avoidant, resistant, and disorganized) and organized versus disorganized attachments varied as a function of risks. Results showed that children living under high-risk conditions (including maltreatment studies) showed fewer secure (d = 0.67) and more disorganized (d = 0.77) attachments than children living in low-risk families. Large effects sizes were found for the set of maltreatment studies: maltreated children were less secure (d = 2.10) and more disorganized (d = 2.19) than other high-risk children (d = 0.48 and d = 0.48, respectively). However, children exposed to five socioeconomic risks (k = 8 studies, d = 1.20) were not significantly less likely to be disorganized than maltreated children. Overall, these meta-analyses show the destructive impact of maltreatment for attachment security as well as disorganization, but the accumulation of socioeconomic risks appears to have a similar impact on attachment disorganization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".