Predictors of Adult Narrative Elaboration: Emotion, Attachment, and Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When individuals first converse with others, they bring to those interactions expectations and habits of communication that are affected by many factors. In this study we looked at several factors simultaneously to see which predicted narrative elaboration in personal memories of early childhood and adolescence: self-described attachment patterns, stress of original experiences, and gender. A sample of 195 undergraduates aged 18–29 recalled their very earliest memory and their earliest memory of adolescence (in counterbalanced order) and completed the Multi-Item Measure of Romantic Attachment (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Positive experiences dominated both early and adolescent memories, though there were significant positive correlations between ratings of negativity (stress) and several measures of narrative elaboration in both kinds of memories. Avoidance scales correlated negatively with many measures of elaboration, while anxiety scales correlated positively only with one submeasure. In regression analyses of narrative elaboration conducted separately for early and late memories, the following significant patterns were observed: (1) females elaborated more than males; (2) more negative memories predicted more elaboration but only in early memories; and (3) avoidance scores predicted less elaboration, while anxiety scales were not significant predictors. Results are discussed in terms of the consequences of these issues for dating.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".