The Moderating Role of Attachment Styles on the Relationship of Alexithymia and Fear of Intimacy with Marital Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment styles, alexithymia, and fear of intimacy are considered to be detrimental to degree of satisfactionwithin the couples relationships. The present study aimed to investigate the moderating role of attachment styleson the relationship of alexithymia and fear of intimacy with marital satisfaction in a sample of Iranian students.Participants (313 males, 375 females) filled the Adult Attachment Inventory (AAI), the Farsi version of theToronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (FTAS-20), Fear of Intimacy Scale (FIS), and the Golombok Rust Inventory ofMarital State Questionnaire (GRIMS). Secure attachment style showed a significant positive association withmarital satisfaction, while insecure attachment styles as well as fear of intimacy and alexithymia showedsignificant negative associations with marital satisfaction. The relationship between fear of intimacy and maritalsatisfaction was moderated by secure and avoidant attachment styles. The results revealed that only avoidantattachment style could moderate the relationship between alexithymia and marital satisfaction. Results of thepresent study suggest that the relationship of alexithymia and fear of intimacy with marital satisfaction is not asimple linear one. This is moderated in part by attachment styles. Hence, secure and insecure attachmentcharacteristics may have significant influence in marital relationship in opposite directions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".