A meta-analysis of the distribution of preschool and early childhood attachment as assessed in the strange situation procedure and its modified versions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis synthesized the distribution of attachment classifications as coded with the Cassidy-Marvin Preschool Attachment Coding System and the Main-Cassidy Six-Year-Old System. These systems have extended scholars’ capacity to measure differences in the developing child-parent attachment relationship, and its sequelae, beyond the infancy period; however, the global distribution of the attachment categories in these systems, and the potential factors influencing this distribution, remain unknown. The meta-analysis included 97 samples (N = 8,186 children; 55% boys), mostly drawn from North American or European populations (89%; M = 76% White). Results indicated that the distribution of child-mother attachment was 53.5% secure, 14.0% avoidant, 11.0% ambivalent, and 21.5% disorganized/controlling. Moderator analyses showed that rates of security were lower, and rates of disorganization were higher, in samples of at-risk families, specifically when children were exposed to maltreatment. Variations in the procedure also moderated the distribution. The discussion calls for greater unity around methodological practices.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".