Individual differences in adult attachment: Disentangling two assessment traditions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this paper was to disentangle the contributions of type of measurement and relational domain to the lack of concordance between adult attachment measures. Eighty-six college students completed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) and self-reported measures of attachment security adapted to their relationships with four different relational partners. Results showed that whereas the AAI main dimensions were unrelated to self-reports relative to any partner, reports of attachment security with different partners were interrelated. Further, very few of the AAI State of Mind scales related to self-reported attachment security, but the AAI Experience scales did relate to self-reports in a theoretically consistent manner. Finally, the AAI scales of Idealization and Lack of Recall correlated positively with self-reported attachment when controlling for experiences reported on the AAI. The results suggest that a fundamental distinction between adult attachment measures could be the degree of automaticity of the constructs tapped, and that attachment self-reports may be biased by defensive information-processing strategies among dismissing individuals.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it