Parental History of Childhood Maltreatment and Offspring Attachment Insecurity and Disorganization: Two Meta-Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research findings have shown that parental history of childhood maltreatment (CM) increases the risk of insecure and disorganized attachment in offspring. However, the extent of the detrimental effects of childhood trauma on attachment in the next generation is unclear. The current meta-analyses aimed at synthesizing the available literature on the link between parental history of CM and offspring attachment insecurity and disorganization (with no restriction of offspring age). In total, 25 studies (23 unique samples; N = 2,592) comprising u = 61 effect sizes were included. Offspring age ranged from 12 to 79 months ( M weighted = 18.69; SD weighted = 11.53). Findings from two three-level random effects meta-analyses revealed a weak but significant combined effect of parental history of CM on child attachment insecurity ( k = 20, u = 35, r = .06) and a non-significant effect on child attachment disorganization ( k = 12, u = 26, r = .03). For the meta-analysis on disorganization, effect sizes were weaker in more recent studies, and trim and fill analyses provided evidence of publication bias. These findings provide a nuanced view of the intergenerational transmission of childhood trauma phenomenon, whereby parents’ self-reported history of CM does not appear decisive for child attachment. Conclusions could not be drawn for specific types of CM because of the small number of studies. Research with more objective measures of parental exposure to CM is needed to gain a more comprehensive view of the possible intergenerational effects of CM on 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 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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.077 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".