Reports an error in "Narrowing the transmission gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational transmission of attachment" by Marije L. Verhage, Carlo Schuengel, Sheri Madigan, R. M. Pasco Fearon, Mirjam Oosterman, Rosalinda Cassibba, Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg and Marinus H. van IJzendoorn (Psychological Bulletin, 2016[Apr], Vol 142[4], 337-366). In the article, there are errors in Table 7. The percentages of the attachment classifications do not add up to 100%. The corrected version of Table 7 is provided in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2015-55801-001.) Twenty years ago, meta-analytic results (k = 19) confirmed the association between caregiver attachment representations and child-caregiver attachment (Van IJzendoorn, 1995). A test of caregiver sensitivity as the mechanism behind this intergenerational transmission showed an intriguing "transmission gap." Since then, the intergenerational transmission of attachment and the transmission gap have been studied extensively, and now extend to diverse populations from all over the globe. Two decades later, the current review revisited the effect sizes of intergenerational transmission, the heterogeneity of the transmission effects, and the size of the transmission gap. Analyses were carried out with a total of 95 samples (total N = 4,819). All analyses confirmed intergenerational transmission of attachment, with larger effect sizes for secure-autonomous transmission (r = .31) than for unresolved transmission (r = .21), albeit with significantly smaller effect sizes than 2 decades earlier (r = .47 and r = .31, respectively). Effect sizes were moderated by risk status of the sample, biological relatedness of child-caregiver dyads, and age of the children. Multivariate moderator analyses showed that unpublished and more recent studies had smaller effect sizes than published and older studies. Path analyses showed that the transmission could not be fully explained by caregiver sensitivity, with more recent studies narrowing but not bridging the "transmission gap." Implications for attachment theory as well as future directions for research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

中文翻译：

---

“缩小传播鸿沟：关于依恋的代际传播的三十年研究综述”：校正。

Marije L. Verhage，Carlo Schuengel，Sheri Madigan，RM Pasco Fearon，Mirjam Oosterman，Rosalinda Cassibba，Marian J. Bakermans-在Marije L. Verhage，Carlo Schuengel，Sheri Madigan的“缩小传播鸿沟：对代际传承的三十年研究综述”中报告了一个错误Kranenburg and Marinus H. van IJzendoorn（Psychology Bulletin，2016 [Apr]，第142卷[4]，337-366）。在本文中，表7中有错误。附件类别的百分比之和不等于100％。表7的更正版本在勘误中提供。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2015-55801-001中。）二十年前，荟萃分析结果（k = 19）证实了看护者依恋表征与儿童看护者依恋之间的关联（Van IJzendoorn，1995）。作为这种代际传播背后机制的照顾者敏感性测试显示出一个令人着迷的“传播差距”。从那时起，对依恋的代际传播和传播差距进行了广泛的研究，现在已扩展到全球各地的不同人群。二十年后的今天，这篇综述重新审视了代际传播的效应大小，传播效应的异质性以及传播差距的大小。对总共95个样品进行了分析（总N = 4,819）。所有分析都证实了依恋的代际传播，安全自主传播的影响大小（r = .31）比未解决的传播（r = .21）要大，尽管其影响大小比20年前更小（r = .47和r = 0.31，分别）。通过样本的风险状况，保育者二联体的生物学相关性和儿童的年龄来减轻影响的大小。多变量主持人分析显示，未发表和较新的研究具有比已发表和较旧的研究更小的效应量。路径分析表明，照料者的敏感性无法完全解释这种传播，最近的研究缩小了但没有弥合“传播差距”。讨论了依恋理论的含义以及未来的研究方向。（PsycINFO数据库记录 多变量主持人分析显示，未发表和较新的研究具有比已发表和较旧的研究更小的效应量。路径分析表明，照料者的敏感性无法完全解释这种传播，最近的研究缩小了但没有弥合“传播差距”。讨论了依恋理论的含义以及未来的研究方向。（PsycINFO数据库记录 多变量主持人分析显示，未发表和较新的研究具有比已发表和较旧的研究更小的效应量。路径分析表明，照料者的敏感性无法完全解释这种传播，最近的研究缩小了但没有弥合“传播差距”。讨论了依恋理论的含义以及未来的研究方向。（PsycINFO数据库记录