A deeper look at the association between childhood maltreatment and reflective functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood maltreatment is theorized as impeding the development of reflective functioning (RF; ability to perceive and interpret oneself and others in terms of mental states). However, previous research typically failed to support this association or yielded small sized and mixed associations. This study aims to provide a deeper look at the association between childhood maltreatment and RF by characterizing two non-mentalizing categories. One-hundred-and-sixteen pregnant women (mean age = 27.62, SD = 4.52) from the community (48.3% with a university degree, 96.5% in a relationship with the other parent) retrospectively reported on childhood abuse and neglect using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. They also participated in the Adult Attachment Interview subsequently coded using the Reflective Functioning Scale. Participants with poor to low RF were allocated to one of two groups (disavowal-distancing or distorted-inconsistent) using indicators provided in the RF Scale. No association was found between childhood maltreatment and overall RF when controlling for education level. A multinomial logistic regression revealed that childhood maltreatment was strongly predictive of a disrupted, over-analytical and inconsistent reflection about mental states but not of a tendency to discourse little about mental states. This tendency was rather only predicted by education level. Findings suggest that childhood maltreatment would lead to specific impairments in RF and that not considering how individuals fail to mentalize about attachment relationships may mask strong associations between RF and its determinants and correlates, including childhood maltreatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".