Understanding the relationship between attachment style, pain appraisal and illness behavior in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insecure attachment has been hypothesized to be an important factor for understanding the experience of pain. Considering the Attachment-Diathesis Model of Chronic Pain developed by Meredith, Ownsworth, and Strong (2008), this cross-sectional study examines the relationship between attachment style, pain appraisal, and illness behavior. Two hundred healthy women recruited from community contexts completed a battery of self-report measures including the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale-20, Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire, Illness Attitude Scales, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire-Revised. The results showed that attachment anxiety was significantly correlated with pain catastrophizing, pain-related fear, depression, and illness behavior. However, attachment anxiety and avoidance were not associated with pain intensity. Attachment anxiety moderated the relationship between pain catastrophizing and illness behavior, and between pain hypervigilance and illness behavior. Pain catastrophizing and pain-related fear partially mediated the effect of attachment anxiety on illness behavior. The findings highlight potential contributions of attachment style and pain appraisal for explaining illness behavior. This study supports earlier reports and suggests the usefulness of assessing attachment style for early identification of people who might exhibit a high risk of dysfunctional responses to pain. Our findings also suggest that increasing people's insight about their attachment style and modifying some associated dysfunctional responses may be important in the treatment of chronic pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".