Verbal and non-verbal parental mentalizing profiles: distinct profiles, different effects on infant attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research in child developmental psychology has shed light on the key role played by parents’ capacity to make sense and interpret accurately child’s mental states (i.e., cognition, emotions) – namely parental mentalizing – on the quality of parent-infant relationships. Despite this increasing interest, previous research has examined parental mentalizing as a unidimensional construct focusing on verbal and explicit processes (i.e., mind-mindedness, parental reflective functioning, PRF). A recent tendency to consider the multidimensional nature of parental mentalizing is observed in current research, particularly by considering the verbal and non-verbal (i.e., parental embodied mentalizing, PEM) dimensions of parental mentalizing (Gagné et al., 2021; Shai et al., 2017; Shai & Meins, 2018). Consistent with these recent developments, this symposium includes three presentations that highlights the unique and complementary roles of verbal and non-verbal parental mentalizing for the parent-infant relationship. First presentation identifies the unique contribution of PEM to the longitudinal prediction of toddlers’ cognitive and linguistic development above and beyond sensitivity and PRF. Based on data collected in three different countries (Canada, England, and Israel), the second presentation shows four distinct profiles of verbal and non-verbal parental mentalizing: Low, High, Good Enough, and Non-Attuned. When compared to the Low profiles, Good Enough, High, and Non-Attuned profiles were associated with distinct infant attachment security and disorganized patterns. The last presentation reveals that exposure to attachment-based intervention was linked to a greater level of parental mind-mindedness and sensitivity. Together, these presentations shed light on how parent ability to mentalize verbally and non-verbally contributes to parent-infant interaction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".