The Influence of Priming Attachment Styles on Excessive Reassurance Seeking and Negative Feedback Seeking in Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies examined the associations among attachment styles, excessive reassurance seeking (ERS) and negative feedback seeking (NFS) in depression. In Study 1 (n = 303), undergraduate students completed measures assessing attachment style, depressive symptoms, and ERS following either an imaginary interpersonal (friend and partner) or achievement prime. In Study 2 (n = 202), undergraduates completed the same measures in addition to completing an index of NFS following an imaginary interpersonal (partner) and achievement prime. Controlling for symptoms of depression, anxious attachment was positively related to ERS, and avoidant attachment was negatively related to ERS and positively associated with NFS. These results suggest that ERS and NFS may be a function of non-secure attachment rather than symptoms of depression per se. More specifically, anxiously attached individuals may attempt to reduce fears of abandonment by seeking reassurance from close others, whereas avoidantly attached individuals may strive to confirm negative perceptions of the self and relationships by seeking out unfavorable feedback from close others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".