Attachment and the Experience of Grief Following the Loss of a Spouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have been conducted in the areas of attachment theory and grief. There is, however, very little research that explores the possible connection between attachment and grief. The present study examines the relationship between an adult's attachment style (i.e., secure or insecure) and an individual's experience of grief after the loss of a spouse. Seventy-seven widows and widowers completed a questionnaire package consisting of the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), the Grief Experience Inventory (Sanders, Mauger, & Strong, 1985a), and the Continuing Bonds Scale (Grund, 1998). Differences between participants who were secure in attachment to their spouse and those insecure in attachment (which includes preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful) were examined on the Grief Experience Inventory and the Continuing Bonds Scale. Findings revealed differences between securely and insecurely attached widowed people on subscales of the Grief Experience Inventory. In particular, securely attached people were less angry, less socially isolated, less guilty, had less death anxiety, less somatic symptoms, less despair, less depersonalization, and ruminated less than insecurely attached people. Analysis of the Continuing Bonds subscales revealed significant differences between secure and insecure attachments such that secure people scored higher on Interchanges with the Deceased, as well as Reminiscing about the Deceased, than insecure people. Taken as a whole, the results seem to indicate that attachment style has an affect on one's grief reaction.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".