Attachment style as a piedictor of sexual attitudes and behavior in late Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research applied attachment theory to the study of sexual attitudes and behaviors in a sample of late adolescents. Four hundred and seventy heterosexual undergraduate students completed questionnaires assessing attachment (discomfort with closeness; anxiety over relationships). relationship history, communication about sex. sexual self-efficacy and locus of control, and attitudes to condoms. Eight weeks later, participants reported on sexual behaviors occurring during the eight-week interval. and perceived risk of these activities. Both discomfort with closeness and anxiety over relationships were associated with external locus of control for sexual outcomes, and with use of drugs before sexual contact. Anxiety over relationships was linked to unsafe sex and to negative attitudes to condoms, but discomfort with closeness was associated with a more cautious approach to sexual risk-taking. Some results were qualified by gender differences. and by differences between the full sample and those who were sexually active. The findings arc discussed in terms of attachment style and its links with communication and affect regulation. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that attachment dimensions are reliably related to many aspects of sexual attitudes and behaviors among late adolescents. Insecure attachment was linked to increased drug use before sexual contact. Anxiety over relationships was also linked to less safe sexual practice, but discomfort with closeness was associated with a tendency for males to be cautious about sexual risk-taking. The results support the utility of the attachment perspective on adolescent sexuality, but also highlight the complex relations between attachment dimensions and sexual outcomes. Future research would benefit from more detailed investigations of the attitudes, emotions, and cognitions which may mediate the link between attachment style and sexual behavior. For example, those who are highly anxious about their relationships may engage in more risky sexual practices because they fear that non-compliance with partners' wishes will jeopardize their relationship; the tendency to engage in drug use before sexual cpntact may reflect their attempts to boost self-confidence or to manage negative mood states. Research into these issues has the potential to explain how attachment insecurity is played out in patterns of sexual activity.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".