Attachment security and parental bonding in adults with obsessive‐compulsive disorder: a comparison with depressed out‐patients and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines concurrent associations of attachment security, psychopathology and recollections of early parental interactions, in adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), depression, and in healthy controls. METHOD: Thirty-six out-patients with OCD, 16 depressed out-patients and 26 controls were asked to fill out the Revised Adult Attachment Scale and the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). RESULTS: OCD and depressed groups were more insecure than controls. The depressed group recalled less caring mothers than the OCD group, while the OCD group was indistinguishable from controls on PBI measures. Married status was associated with greater security, but also with recollections of greater parental control, and lower maternal care. CONCLUSION: OCD and depressed groups demonstrated greater attachment insecurity than controls. No clear relationship emerged between security and PBI recollections. The PBI may not measure aspects of early interactions essential for later attachment security, or recollections may be biased according to diagnosis or attachment style.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".