CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 742

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The first 10,000 Adult Attachment Interviews: distributions of adult attachment representations in clinical and non-clinical groups

Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J., van IJzendoorn, Marinus H.·2009·Attachment & Human Development
DOI 10.1080/14616730902814762
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

More than 200 adult attachment representation studies, presenting more than 10,500 Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985) classifications, have been conducted in the past 25 years. In a series of analyses on the distributions of the AAI classifications in various cultural and age groups, fathers, and high-risk and clinical samples, we used the distribution of the combined samples of North American non-clinical mothers (23% dismissing, 58% secure, 19% preoccupied attachment representations, and 18% additionally coded for unresolved loss or other trauma) to examine deviations from this normative pattern, through multinomial tests and analyses of correspondence. The analyses were restricted to AAI classifications coded according to the Main, Goldwyn, and Hesse (2003) system. We did not find gender differences in the use of dismissing versus preoccupied attachment strategies, and the AAI distributions were largely independent of language and country of origin. Clinical subjects showed more insecure and unresolved attachment representations than the norm groups. Disorders with an internalizing dimension (e.g., borderline personality disorders) were associated with more preoccupied and unresolved attachments, whereas disorders with an externalizing dimension (e.g., antisocial personality disorders) displayed more dismissing as well as preoccupied attachments. Depressive symptomatology was associated with insecurity but not with unresolved loss or trauma, whe…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14616730902814762

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Population studies consistently find secure attachment as the most prevalent style (50-60%), followed by avoidant (23-25%), anxious (11-19%), and a smaller ambivalent minority.

    “Population studies consistently find secure attachment as the most prevalent style (50-60 %), followed by avoidant (23-25 %), anxious (11-19 %), and a smaller ambivalent minority (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van Ijzendoorn 2009;Mickelson et al. 1997).”

    From Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions (2026) · cites this paper as Bakermans-Kranenburg & van Ijzendoorn 2009

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H.
Venue
Attachment & Human Development
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2009-05
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
223-263
ISSN
  • 1461-6734
  • 1469-2988
DOI
10.1080/14616730902814762
Cited by
742
References
8
Language
en

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