CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,526Attachment and Relationship DynamicsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment

De Wolff, Marianne S, van Ijzendoorn, Marinus H·1997·Child Development
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb04218.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This meta-analysis included 66 studies (N = 4,176) on parental antecedents of attachment security. The question addressed was whether maternal sensitivity is associated with infant attachment security, and what the strength of this relation is. It was hypothesized that studies more similar to Ainsworth's Baltimore study (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) would show stronger associations than studies diverging from this pioneering study. To create conceptually homogeneous sets of studies, experts divided the studies into 9 groups with similar constructs and measures of parenting. For each domain, a meta-analysis was performed to describe the central tendency, variability, and relevant moderators. After correction for attenuation, the 21 studies (N = 1,099) in which the Strange Situation procedure in nonclinical samples was used, as well as preceding or concurrent observational sensitivity measures, showed a combined effect size of r(1,097) = .24. According to Cohen's (1988) conventional criteria, the association is moderately strong. It is concluded that in normal settings sensitivity is an important but not exclusive condition of attachment security. Several other dimensions of parenting are identified as playing an equally important role. In attachment theory, a move to the contextual level is required to interpret the complex transactions between context and sensitivity in less stable and more stressful settings, and to pay more attention to nonshared environmental influences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb04218.x

Cites

148 of 148 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
De Wolff, M. S., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H.
Affiliations
Center for Child and Family Studies, Leiden University , P.O. Box 9555, NL-2300RB Leiden ,
Venue
Child Development
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1997-08-01
Volume
68
Issue
4
Pages
571-591
ISSN
  • 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8624
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb04218.x
OpenAlex
W2011849258
Cited by
2,526
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 141 · 2020: 154 · 2019: 125 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 128 · 2016: 120 · 2015: 135 · 2014: 130 · 2013: 126 · 2012: 112
FWCI
11.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
maternal sensitivity, infant attachment, attachment security, Strange Situation Procedure, Ainsworth, parenting, nonshared environment, correction for attenuation, effect size
MeSH terms
Adult, Psychology, Child, Communication, Cooperative Behavior, Cues, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Maternal Behavior, Mother-Child Relations, Object Attachment, Psychological Theory, Research Design, Touch, Parenting

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