Longitudinal association between adolescent attachment, adult romantic attachment, and emotion regulation strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment security towards parents and peers in adolescence, and romantic attachment styles and emotion regulation strategies in young adulthood, were evaluated using an eight-year longitudinal design. Fifty-six young adults completed the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) at age 14, and then, at age 22, the Experience in Close Relationships (ECR) and the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS), an emotion regulation questionnaire concerning coping strategies, including task-oriented versus emotion-oriented foci. Results indicated that greater insecurity to parents and peers in adolescence predicted a more anxious romantic attachment style and greater use of emotion-oriented strategies in adulthood. Concurrently, anxious adult attachment style was related to more emotion-oriented strategies, whereas an avoidant attachment style was related to less support-seeking. Analyses also identified emotion-oriented coping strategies as a partial mediator of the link between adolescent attachment insecurity to parents and adult anxious attachment, and a complete mediator of the association between adolescent attachment insecurity to peers and adult anxious attachment. These findings support the core assumption of continuity in attachment theory, where relationships to parents influence close romantic relationships in adulthood.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".