Distress Regulation in Infancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relationship between attachment, temperamental fear, and pain-related distress was examined in a sample of 130 caregiver-infant dyads to explore the differential susceptibility hypothesis. METHOD: Infant distress was measured during routine immunization at 12 months, and attachment and temperamental fear were measured at 12 to 18 months (meanage = 13.74, SD = 1.35) using the Strange Situation Procedure and parent-rated Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised, respectively. RESULTS: Immediately before immunization, avoidant infants exhibited significantly less distress than secure infants. Temperamental fear moderated the relationship between attachment and regulation; under conditions of high temperamental fear, avoidant infants regulated distress more slowly than secure infants, whereas under conditions of low temperamental fear, secure infants regulated distress more slowly than avoidant and disorganized infants. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that attachment interacts with extremes in temperamental fear to produce differences in the regulation of distress. The results partially support the differential susceptibility hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".