Early childhood attachment stability to mothers, fathers, and both parents as a network: associations with parents' well-being, marital relationship, and child behavior problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the stability of child attachment to mothers and fathers separately, and to both parents as a network between the infancy and preschool periods using a sample of 143 biparental families and their children (73 boys) recruited from the general population. Attachment was assessed at 15 months with the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) and at 45 months with the Preschool Attachment Classification Coding System (PACS). First, results show no stability in attachment to mothers, to fathers, or to both parents as a network. Second, parents' mental health, life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and child externalizing behavior are associated with attachment stability. Taken altogether, group comparisons reveal that children with a stable secure attachment to both parents as a network have parents with higher levels of well-being and exhibit less problem behaviors than children with 1) a stable secure attachment to one parent and an unstable attachment to the other parent (from secure to insecure or from insecure to secure), or 2) who never had a stable secure attachment to either parent. This study highlights the significance of attachment to both parents as a network over time as it is associated with developmental outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".