MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032047331 · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2011.606881

Romantic Attachment Insecurity Predicts Sexual Dissatisfaction in Couples Seeking Marital Therapy

2012· article· en· W2032047331 on OpenAlexaff
Audrey Brassard, Katherine Péloquin, Emmanuelle Dupuy, John Wright, Phillip R. Shaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRomanceAttachment theoryAnxietyMarital TherapyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPartner effectsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers and practitioners have noted the importance of considering individual characteristics as well as couple dynamics when attempting to understand couples and sexual difficulties. Using a dyadic approach, this study examined the links between 2 forms of romantic attachment insecurity (anxiety and avoidance) and sexual dissatisfaction among members of couples seeking couple therapy. A large clinical sample of 242 French-speaking couples completed the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale and the Index of Sexual Satisfaction. Analyses based on the actor-partner interdependence model revealed that both attachment anxiety and avoidance predicted individuals' own sexual dissatisfaction (actor effects). The authors also observed 2 partner effects: (a) anxiety in men predicted female partners' sexual dissatisfaction and (b) avoidance in women predicted male partners' sexual dissatisfaction. The results support attachment theory and have clinical implications for emotion-focused couple therapy and other approaches to couple therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sex & Marital TherapySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207