-->PONE-D-26-03584-->-->Organizing Adult Attachment in Alternative Ways:

A Qualitative Assessment of Schemas Antithetical to the Secure Base Script-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Maingot,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tobias Otterbring

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by a grant from Stichting tot Steun Nederland (stichtingtotsteunvcvgz.nl/) to M. Oosterman and C. Schuengel, a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canada (sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/) (No. 430-2015-00989) to S. Madigan, a Veni grant by the Dutch Research Council (nwo.nl) (No. 451-17-010) to M. L. Verhage, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health to Glenn Roisman (nih.gov)(R01HD102035). Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HD102035 to GIR. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

5. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium “The Attachment Secondary Processing and Analysis Network of the Collaboration on Attachment Transmission Synthesis (ASPAN-CATS)”. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

7. We note that this data set consists of interview transcripts. Can you please confirm that all participants gave consent for interview transcript to be published?

If they DID provide consent for these transcripts to be published, please also confirm that the transcripts do not contain any potentially identifying information (or let us know if the participants consented to having their personal details published and made publicly available). We consider the following details to be identifying information:

- Names, nicknames, and initials

- Age more specific than round numbers

- GPS coordinates, physical addresses, IP addresses, email addresses

- Information in small sample sizes (e.g. 40 students from X class in X year at X university)

- Specific dates (e.g. visit dates, interview dates)

- ID numbers

Or, if the participants DID NOT provide consent for these transcripts to be published:

- Provide a de-identified version of the data or excerpts of interview responses

- Provide information regarding how these transcripts can be accessed by researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data, including:

a) the grounds for restriction

b) the name of the ethics committee, Institutional Review Board, or third-party organization that is imposing sharing restrictions on the data

c) a non-author, institutional point of contact that is able to field data access queries, in the interest of maintaining long-term data accessibility.

d) Any relevant data set names, URLs, DOIs, etc. that an independent researcher would need in order to request your minimal data set.

For further information on sharing data that contains sensitive participant information, please see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data

If there are ethical, legal, or third-party restrictions upon your dataset, you must provide all of the following details (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions):

1. A complete description of the dataset

2. The nature of the restrictions upon the data (ethical, legal, or owned by a third party) and the reasoning behind them

3. The full name of the body imposing the restrictions upon your dataset (ethics committee, institution, data access committee, etc)

4. If the data are owned by a third party, confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have

5. Direct, non-author contact information (preferably email) for the body imposing the restrictions upon the data, to which data access requests can be sent

8. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file “SUPPLEMENTAL FULL_Altschemas_formatting.pdf”. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory.

Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information “Age”, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

9. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

Your paper has now been reviewed by two experts in this topic domain. Both the reviewers generally like what you have done, although their assessments diverge slightly, with one of them recommending a major revision and the other one suggesting a minor revision. Please see their detailed comments below. Based on the many thoughtful remarks provided by the reviewers, I am willing to move your manuscript into a second round of reviews. This will be a major revision with a clear path toward publication as long as you carefully address the concerns raised by the reviewers, with corresponding edits in the manuscript.

Please resubmit your revision at your earliest convenience and no later than 60 days from now. If you need additional time, please let me know at tobias.otterbring@uia.no.

Kind regards,

Tobias Otterbring

Handling Editor, PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: “Organizing the attachment to alternative ways: A qualitative assessment of schemas antithetical to the secure base script”

The manuscript presents a qualitative reanalysis of data obtained through the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). I find the paper very interesting and valuable, particularly because it demonstrates the diversity of behavioral patterns that may emerge in the parent–child relationship and highlights which aspects of these relationships are remembered and narrated by adults. The study is based on a large dataset of 1,592 interview transcripts collected in three languages (English, Dutch, and French), which constitutes an impressive empirical basis for qualitative analysis.

The theoretical background is well developed, and the analytic procedure appears rigorous and carefully conducted. Overall, the study provides a compelling qualitative exploration of schemas that are antithetical to the secure base script.

Importantly, the authors themselves acknowledge that identifying additional schemas or thematic patterns is only the first step. As they note, a crucial next step will be to determine whether these specific schema types can be reliably coded and whether they have unique correlates or predictive value for different developmental or relational outcomes. I agree with this assessment and consider the present paper a meaningful contribution that opens promising directions for future research.

I have only one substantive comment that may help strengthen the manuscript.

The dataset includes transcripts in three different languages (English, Dutch, and French). It would be helpful for readers if the authors provided more information about the composition of the dataset. Specifically, what proportion of the analyzed transcripts came from each linguistic or national sample? And were there any notable differences between these subsamples in terms of the identified schemas or thematic patterns?

While such distinctions may not be central to the qualitative aims of the study, they are nevertheless informative for understanding the scope and diversity of the analyzed material. Additionally, it would be interesting to know whether any attachment-related schemas or themes appeared exclusively or predominantly in one linguistic or cultural context but not in others. Even a brief note addressing this issue would enrich the interpretation of the findings.

Apart from this clarification, I have no major concerns. In my view, the manuscript is already suitable for publication, and addressing the points above would further strengthen an already very interesting and well-executed study.

Reviewer #2: I am truly grateful to the authors for addressing such an important topic. However, I have several major comments that should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Comment 1. The aim of the study could be expanded to include the role of alternative schemas. I suggest that the authors more explicitly highlight the importance of alternative schemas within attachment theory.

Comment 2. The sample is not sufficiently defined or described. I would appreciate it if the authors provided more detailed sample characteristics, including relevant demographic information.

Comment 3. In the discussion section, I recommend elaborating on the theoretical meaning of these alternative schemas in the context of attachment insecurities. Specifically, the implications for different attachment styles should be clarified. How do these findings contribute to our understanding of internal working models?

Comment 4. The manuscript would benefit from a deeper discussion of the theoretical implications of these schemas, particularly in relation to cultural norms.

Comment 5. Finally, I suggest including a clearly defined limitations section that addresses potential issues related to gender, culture, and methodology.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Organizing Adult Attachment in Alternative Ways:

A Qualitative Assessment of Schemas Antithetical to the Secure Base Script

PONE-D-26-03584R1

Dear Dr. Maingot,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tobias Otterbring

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors,

I thank you for delivering a carefully crafted revision. As I believe you have compellingly addressed all the substantive concerns raised by the reviewers, I am happy to recommend acceptance of your work in its current form. Congratulations!

Kind regards,

Tobias Otterbring

Handling Editor, PLOS One

Reviewers' comments: