Association Between Nonparenting Adult’s Attachment Patterns and Brain Structure and Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing has a long history of attending to the importance of early attachment experiences to later development. Attachment strategies formed in infancy and early childhood can have lifelong effects on an individual’s behavior and health. Advances in neuroimaging technology allow us to understand how these early experiences map onto the structure and function of the brain and ultimately behavior and health. Previous reviews have discussed the findings of studies observing correlations between attachment strategy and neural function and structure in romantic partners and parents, but far less has been said about nonparenting adults. This article reviews the relationship between attachment strategies developed in childhood and brain structure and function in nonparenting adults. A total of 14 studies met inclusion criteria. Results showed adult attachment patterns of nonparenting adults are pervasively correlated with brain structure and function, with most associations observed in executive regions, followed by affective and reward processing. Notably, no studies found associations between attachment pattern and stress response, in contrast with studies of mothers. These brain regions are linked to the many behavioral, mood and substance abuse disorders observed in adults with insecure attachment patterns. Nurses can use these findings to help prevent, assess and address these health risks in nonparenting adults, as well as provide the brain-based evidence to support the utility of nursing interventions designed to further promote healthy parent–child relationships and secure parent–child attachment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".