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

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 v = .09; N = 1026). The combined effect size for the relation between attachment and language competence was v = .28 (1^ -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'.What do we know about the relation between socio-emotional and cognitive development? Are these central dimensions of human development orthogonal or intertwined, and if the latter is the case, how strong is the association between socio-emotional and cognitive functioning? In this paper we would like to address these questions in the context of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969). It has been suggested that the first attachment relationship between infants and their parents is an important foundation for the children's development in other domains, such

A short-term longitudinal study of correlates and sequelae of attachment security in autism

“…Thus, our findings replicate and extend a substantial body of empirical evidence linking cognitive skill and attachment security in children with autism (Capps et al, 1994; Rogers et al, 1993, 1991; Willemsen-Swinkels et al, 2000), Down syndrome (Atkinson et al, 1999), and typically developing children (Main, 1983; Van IJzendoorn et al, 1995) and document these links longitudinally.…”

“…However, associations between individual differences in quality of attachment and symbolic and cognitive abilities have been reported among samples of children with autism (e.g. Naber et al, 2008; Willemsen-Swinkels et al, 2000), typically developing children (see Van IJzendoorn, Dijkstra, & Bus, 1995 for a meta-analysis) and children with Down syndrome (Atkinson et al, 1999). We hypothesized that, compared to children with autism classified as organized insecure or disorganized, children classified as securely attached would have better language skills and that these group differences would persist through the 1-year follow-up.…”

Causal effects of the early caregiving environment on development of stress response systems in children

“…The experimental design of the current study clarifies these inconsistencies in prior observational studies. The complex nature of human attachment and social interaction with caregivers might be one domain in which direct parallels with the animal literature are limited, potentially related to the fact that the attachment relationship between children and caregivers is a necessary scaffold for development of numerous uniquely human capacities, including emotion regulation and language (49,50). Methodological differences that are difficult to reconcile could also contribute, including different methods used to elicit physiological responses in animals (e.g., restraint or shock) and humans (e.g., social or cognitive challenges).…”

Preschool language development among children of adolescent mothers

“…A meta-analysis of the association between attachment security and later language reported an effect size of r = .28 (van IJzendoorn, Dijkstra, & Bus, 1995), suggesting that language development is promoted within the context of a secure relationship between caregiver and child. Hann, Osofsky, and Culp (1996) demonstrated, in a sample of adolescent mothers, that indicators of mother and child interaction were strong predictors of 44-month language performance even after controlling for demographic risk.…”