Cited by 291Attachment and Relationship DynamicsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentChild and Animal Learning Development

Attachment, Intelligence, and Language: A Meta‐analysis†

Open access
van IJzendoorn, Marinus H., Dijkstra, Jarissa, Bus, Adriana G.·1995·Social Development

Abstract

In attachment theory, several hypotheses about the association between attachment and cognitive development have been generated. In a series of meta‐analyses on 32 studies, we tested whether the quality of attachment is related to intelligence (DQ or IQ) and to language competence. Attachment showed a weak association with DQ and IQ measures (combined r = .09; N = 1026). The combined effect size for the relation between attachment and language competence was r = .28 (N = 303). We conclude, first, that differences in intelligence do not play a major role in shaping attachment relationships. Differences in quality of attachment are not confounded in any significant way with differences in intelligence. Second, secure children appeared to be more competent in the language domain than insecure children. Language development appears to be stimulated in the context of a secure attachment relationship because secure parents may be better ‘teachers’ and secure children may be better motivated ‘students’.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1995.tb00055.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Attachment style influences affective, cognitive, and linguistic functions.

    “Attachment style not only constitutes a model of relationships with others, but also influences affective, cognitive, and linguistic functions (Grossmann, 1999;van IJzendoorn et al., 1995).”

    From The Role of Personality in Language Learning (2026) · cites this paper as van IJzendoorn et al., 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Dijkstra, J., & Bus, A. G.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Venue
Social Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-07
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
115-128
ISSN
  • 0961-205X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9507
OpenAlex
W2009884304
Cited by
291
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 15
FWCI
8.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Development (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
attachment, attachment theory, intelligence, language competence, cognitive development, secure attachment, insecure attachment, language development, parent-child relationship, attachment quality

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