The similarity of siblings' attachments to their mother
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do siblings develop similar attachment relationships with their mother?Attachment theory suggests that brothers and sisters growing up in the same family are likely to relate in similar ways to their parents, at least when parental attachment representations and interactive styles remain stable across time.In the current study, sibling attachment data from three research groups (from Pennsylvania State University, Leiden University, and the University of Western Ontario) have been pooled to assemble a sufficiently large sample of observations ( N ϭ 138 sibling pairs) for a detailed comparison of sibling attachment relationships.Spacing between the births, differences in maternal sensitivity, and gender of siblings were examined as possible sources of concordance of nonconcordance.Attachment security (including disorganized attachment) of each sibling was assessed with the Strange Situation procedure between 12 and 14 months after birth.Maternal sensitivity was observed with the same rating scale in a laboratory play session in one of the studies and in home observations in the others.Sibling relationships were found to be significantly concordant when classified as secure/nonsecure (62% concordance, p Ͻ .01,1-tailed, intraclass correlation ϭ .23)but not when further subcategorized.Maternal insensitivity to both siblings (shared environment) was associated with concordance of sibling nonsecurity.Siblings of the same gender were more likely to form concordant relationships with their mother (68%; p Ͻ .01,1-tailed, intraclass correlation ϭ .37)than those of opposite gender.Same-sex sibling concordance was comparable to the concordance found for monozygotic twins in earlier studies.Genetic factors may, therefore, play a relatively small role in the development of 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 | 0.007 |
| 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".