Parental mentalizing profiles : When distinct patterns of verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing profiles are associated with different effects on infant attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last 50 years, researchers have been intrigued by uncovering mechanisms involved in the development of parent-child attachment security. Contemporary researchers have identified parental mentalizing as an important contributor of child attachment security. Although empirical studies and a meta-analysis have highlighted the role played by parental mentalizing on child attachment, most of the research thus far has focused on verbal and explicit processes involved in parental mentalizing. To deepen understanding the role played by parental mentalizing, some researchers have recently been interested in the relative contributions of these two dimensions, verbal (i.e., mind-mindedness) and nonverbal (i.e., parental embodied mentalizing, PEM) parental mentalizing. Current studies tend to support the unique role played by verbal and nonverbal dimensions particularly on infant attachment security. However, how verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing interact with one another on the individual level, and subsequently, how they relate to the parent-infant attachment relationship remains largely unknown. Using a person-centered approach, this study aimed to identify verbal and nonverbal mentalizing profiles and their associations with infant attachment (security and disorganization). Based on longitudinal studies from three different countries (Canada, United Kingdom, and Israel), the sample of this study included 412 mothers-infant dyads. Mind-mindedness (verbal) and PEM (nonverbal) were assessed based on observations made during a 15-minutes mother-infant interactions free play interactions when the infants were 6 to 8 months old according to two distinct observational procedures. Infant attachment security and disorganized were measured using The Strange Situation Procedure at 16 months. Through latent profile analyses, three distinct profiles based on verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing profiles were identified (low consistent, high consistent, and inconsistent). Results showed that the low consistent profile, compared to high consistent or inconsistent one, had distinct associations regarding infant attachment security. Infant whose parents were in the low consistent-profile present more disorganization compared to high consistent-profile. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore parental mentalizing profile based on verbal and nonverbal parental mentalizing and their associations with infant attachment. Our results thus highlight the importance of considering both aspects parental mentalization within the parent-infant relationship.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".