Infant attachment, adult attachment, and maternal sensitivity: revisiting the intergenerational transmission gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the intergenerational transmission of attachment, utilizing the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP), and the Maternal Behavioral Q-Set (MBQS). We revisited fundamental questions in attachment theory and research by examining: (1) the level of intergenerational agreement between maternal attachment representations and infant attachment security, and (2) whether maternal sensitivity serves as an intergenerational mediator between adult and infant attachment security. Significant categorical matches between the AAI and the SSP as well as mean differences for MBQS scores between adult attachment secure-insecure groups were found. Consistent with earlier intergenerational research, maternal sensitivity only partially mediated the AAI-SSP link, indicating the transmission gap remains. Consistent with recent mediation studies, using more contemporary analytical techniques, it was confirmed that maternal sensitivity did mediate the direct pathway between AAI security and SSP security. Thus, the transmission gap appears somewhat different depending on the statistical method used to measure mediation. Post hoc analyses considered mothers' childhood experiences of separation/divorce and this helped make sense of intergenerational mismatches.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".