In the first sentence of the abstract in Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn's commentary on the target article by Del Giudice in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(1) (February 2009), the word “would” was deleted. The abstract should read as follows:

Abstract: In middle childhood boys would show more avoidant attachments and girls more ambivalent attachments as a prelude to gender differentiation in reproductive strategies. However, we failed to find systematic and method-independent gender differences in middle or late childhood attachments, nor in adult attachment representations. We conclude that Del Giudice's model rests on a brittle empirical basis.

There are also several errors in Table 1 of the commentary. Due to an error on the part of the typesetter, several values in the table were set in boldface when they should not have been. These include:

• • –0.2 in the “Avoidant” column below “Haberman's adjusted standardized residuals” and the “Boys” row below “Observations (separation-reunion)”

• • –0.2 in the “Secure” column below “Haberman's adjusted standardized residuals” and the “Girls” row below “Observations (separation-reunion)”

• • –1.8 in the “Avoidant” column below “Haberman's adjusted standardized residuals” and the “Girls” row below “AAI (modified for younger ages)”

• • –1.0 in the “Secure” column below “Haberman's adjusted standardized residuals” and the “Boys” row below “AAI”

• • –1.8 in the “Avoidant” column below “Haberman's adjusted standardized residuals” and the “Girls” row below “AAI”

“Haberman's adjusted standardized residuals” should extend across the last three columns of the table, below the “Secure,” “Avoidant,” and “Ambivalent” column heads. In the issue, this only extends below the “Secure” and “Avoidant” column heads. Also, the word “residuals” followed by an asterisk should not have appeared below the word “Ambivalent” in the last column head.

We regret these errors.

In the “Ambivalent (n; %)” column in the “Girls” row below “Doll play narratives,” the “20%” should be “13%.” This value was listed as “20%” on the manuscript submitted to the publisher.

The table as corrected appears on page 248.

Table 1.

Distributions of attachment in middle childhood and adulthood

*Significant adjusted standard residuals in bold

¹Del Giudice (2008); Gilissen et al. (2008); Gloger-Tippelt et al. (2007); Granot & Mayseless (2001); Kerns et al. (2007); Toth et al. (2006)

²Bureau et al. (2006); Pannebakker (2007)

³Beijersbergen et al. (in press); Ammaniti et al. (2000)

⁴Van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg (in preparation)