Examining Ecological Constraints on the Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment Via Individual Participant Data Meta‐analysis

Abstract

Parents' attachment representations and child-parent attachment have been shown to be associated, but these associations vary across populations (Verhage et al., 2016). The current study examined whether ecological factors may explain variability in the strength of intergenerational transmission of attachment, using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Analyses on 4,396 parent-child dyads (58 studies, child age 11-96 months) revealed a combined effect size of r = .29. IPD meta-analyses revealed that effect sizes for the transmission of autonomous-secure representations to secure attachments were weaker under risk conditions and weaker in adolescent parent-child dyads, whereas transmission was stronger for older children. Findings support the ecological constraints hypothesis on attachment transmission. Implications for attachment theory and the use of IPD meta-analysis are discussed.

Meta‐analysis and Individual Participant Data Synthesis in Child Development: Introduction to the Special Section

“…One clear message of the articles presented here is that the quantitative synthesis of developmental data is a domain‐general enterprise . Indeed, the articles featured in this special section cover most of the full range of modern developmental science, including developmental cognitive neuroscience (Yaple & Arsalidou, ), language development (Bergmann et al., ; Quinn & Wagner, ), numerical cognition (Hornburg, Wang, & McNeil, ), social and emotional development (Larzelere et al., ; Verhage et al., ), intervention and prevention science (Gardner et al., ; Leijten et al., ), and even generational‐ and age‐related change in children's stereotypes and behavior (Miller et al., ). In short, it would be a mistake to claim that meta‐analysis is only appropriate for select domains of developmental science.…”

“…And Verhage et al. () use IPD meta‐analysis to demonstrate that the intergenerational transmission of attachment security appears weaker than was once thought, particularly among at‐risk families.…”

“…Similarly, Verhage et al. () used IPD synthesis to examine the unique significance of child age in attachment transmission net of measurement confounds (in the study of intergenerational transmission of attachment security, child age, and attachment measurement are typically conflated at the study level).…”

“…Many of studies of this special section illustrate that quantitative reviews can be used in ways of arguably even greater value than in summarizing bivariate associations, in particular in ways that support programmatic, replicable, and cumulative developmental science (Van IJzendoorn, ). For instance, meta‐analysis also can be used to generate new hypotheses for future empirical studies by exploring variations between study effect sizes through moderator analyses, highlighting under‐researched subdomains, or in drawing attention to data patterns across studies not yet widely appreciated (e.g., Miller, Nolla, Eagly, & Uttal, ; Verhage et al., ; Yaple & Arsalidou, ). Likewise, quantitative reviews can be profitably used as diagnostic tools for assessing the risk of false‐positive and false‐negative results in a given literature, in part by uncovering underpowered research, publication biases, problematic assessment of key variables (e.g., low reliability), and selective reporting practices (e.g., Bergmann et al., ; Verhage et al., ).…”

“…For instance, meta‐analysis also can be used to generate new hypotheses for future empirical studies by exploring variations between study effect sizes through moderator analyses, highlighting under‐researched subdomains, or in drawing attention to data patterns across studies not yet widely appreciated (e.g., Miller, Nolla, Eagly, & Uttal, ; Verhage et al., ; Yaple & Arsalidou, ). Likewise, quantitative reviews can be profitably used as diagnostic tools for assessing the risk of false‐positive and false‐negative results in a given literature, in part by uncovering underpowered research, publication biases, problematic assessment of key variables (e.g., low reliability), and selective reporting practices (e.g., Bergmann et al., ; Verhage et al., ). Moreover, meta‐analysis need not be limited to synthesizing relatively “lossy” study ‐level data (i.e., from which more nuanced case‐level information has been stripped), but can be ideally extended to individual participant data (IPD) synthesis, a focus of several of the articles in this special section and a topic to which we will return later.…”