Verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing profiles: Distinct profiles of mind-mindedness and embodied parental mentalizing according to infant attachment and parental factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental researchers have highlighted the role played by parental mentalizing in early attachment. However, the manner in which verbal (i.e., mind-mindedness) and nonverbal (i.e., parental embodied mentalizing) parental mentalizing relate with one another on an individual level, and subsequently, how they contribute to parent-infant attachment, remains largely unexplored. Using a person-centered approach, this study aimed to identify verbal and nonverbal mentalizing profiles and their associations with infant attachment, as well as with parental factors and interactional context (e.g., exploration, transitions). Based on longitudinal studies from three countries (Canada, United Kingdom, and Israel), this study included 412 mother-infant dyads. Mind-mindedness and parental embodied mentalizing were assessed through two distinct observational procedures during free-play interactions at 6-8 months. Infant attachment was evaluated using the Strange Situation Procedure at 15-16 months. Latent profile analyses identified four parental mentalizing profiles based on verbal and nonverbal indicators: very low consistent, low consistent, high consistent, and inconsistent. The three consistent profiles reflected low or high levels across both verbal and nonverbal indicators, whereas the inconsistent profile was marked by inconsistency: these parents produced more non-attuned comments than other profiles but still demonstrated good embodied mentalizing and made appropriate mind-related comments. Results showed that the high consistent profile was associated with greater infant attachment security than the very low consistent, low consistent, or inconsistent profiles. This study suggests distinct parental mentalizing profiles based on verbal and nonverbal indicators, and their differential relations with later 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".