The DOI matches its Crossref record; 191 of the 191 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mind matters: A meta-analysis on parental mentalization and sensitivity as predictors of infant–parent attachment.
Open accessAbstract
Major developments in attachment research over the past 2 decades have introduced parental mentalization as a predictor of infant-parent attachment security. Parental mentalization is the degree to which parents show frequent, coherent, or appropriate appreciation of their infants' internal states. The present study examined the triangular relations between parental mentalization, parental sensitivity, and attachment security. A total of 20 effect sizes (N = 974) on the relation between parental mentalization and attachment, 82 effect sizes (N = 6,664) on the relation between sensitivity and attachment, and 24 effect sizes (N = 2,029) on the relation between mentalization and sensitivity were subjected to multilevel meta-analyses. The results showed a pooled correlation of r = .30 between parental mentalization and infant attachment security, and rs of .25 for the correlations between sensitivity and attachment security, and between parental mentalization and sensitivity. A meta-analytic structural equation model was performed to examine the combined effects of mentalization and sensitivity as predictors of infant attachment. Together, the predictors explained 12% of the variance in attachment security. After controlling for the effect of sensitivity, the relation between parental mentalization and attachment remained, r = .24; the relation between sensitivity and attachment remained after controlling for parental mentalization, r = .19. Sensitivity also mediated the relation between parental mentalization and attachment security, r = .07, suggesting that mentalization exerts both direct and indirect influences on attachment security. The results imply that parental mentalization should be incorporated into existing models that map the predictors of infant-parent attachment. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,866
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
(1969) · Cited by 18,340
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 12,570
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 · Cited by 9,349
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00076512 · Cited by 8,743
Cited by
The mentalizing approach to psychopathology: State of the art and future directions
Luyten, P., Campbell, C., Allison, E., & Fonagy, P. (2020) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071919-015355 · Cited by 748
Music therapy for stress reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
de Witte, M., Pinho, A. D. S., Stams, G.-J., Moonen, X., Bos, A. E. R., & van Hooren, S. (2022) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2020.1846580 · Cited by 444
Self-citationMeta-analytic structural equation modeling with moderating effects on SEM parameters.
Jak, S., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2020) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000245 · Cited by 262
Research priorities for the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science
O'Connor, D. B., Aggleton, J. P., Chakrabarti, B., Cooper, C. L., Creswell, C., Dunsmuir, S., Fiske, S. T., Gathercole, S., Gough, B., Ireland, J. L., et al. (2020) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12468 · Cited by 210
Self-citationVan Dam, L., Smit, D., Wildschut, B., Branje, S. J. T., Rhodes, J. E., Assink, M., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2018) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/ajcp.12248 · Cited by 174
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zeegers, M. A. J., Colonnesi, C., Stams, G.-J. J. M., & Meins, E.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1245-1272
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2620967654
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 191
- FWCI
- 35.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mind matters: A meta-analysis on parental mentalization and sensitivity as predictors of infant–parent attachment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/bul0000114
- The paper
- Zeegers, M. A. J., Colonnesi, C., Stams, G.-J. J. M., & Meins, E. (2017). Mind matters: A meta-analysis on parental mentalization and sensitivity as predictors of infant–parent attachment. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000114
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.