A systematic review and meta‐analysis of parental mentalization in fathers and mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing literature on parental mentalization (including measures such as mind-mindedness, parental reflective functioning, and parental insightfulness), considerably less research on parental mentalization has been conducted with fathers than with mothers, leaving important gaps in our understanding of gender differences in the construct. Specifically, it is not clear whether mothers and fathers exhibit similar levels of parental mentalization, and whether their scores are correlated. This knowledge can help inform the literature on similarities and differences between maternal and paternal behaviors, as well as the literature on their correlates. This study sought to answer these questions using a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating parental mentalization capacities in partnered mothers and fathers. Across 36 studies (32 unique samples and 87 effect sizes, N = 3,996 fathers and 4,414 mothers), mainly from Europe and North America, the results show that fathers presented lower scores than mothers (d = -.17, p < .001). There was also a significant correlation in scores between mothers and fathers of the same family (r = .15, p < .001). There were no significant moderators. Findings from this study emphasize the need for research on parental mentalization to use a family system approach.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Meta-analysis answering a substantive question about parental mentalization; it uses a synthesis method rather than studying one.
This systematic review answers a substantive psychology question about parental mentalization rather than studying evidence synthesis.
Uses systematic review and meta-analysis to answer a parental mentalization question; method vs object.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".