Adult attachment and pain catastrophizing for self and significant other
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research indicates that attachment insecurity is associated with pain-related catastrophizing. Attachment anxiety has consistently been found to be positively associated with pain catastrophizing. In contrast, the relationship between attachment avoidance and pain catastrophizing has been less consistent. The current study was designed to (a) determine whether anxiety accounts for unique variance in catastrophizing beyond that contributed by the overlapping constructs of self-esteem and neuroticism and (b) clarify the relationship between avoidance and catastrophizing by investigating this relationship when controlling for attachment anxiety. The final objective was to investigate whether attachment is also related to catastrophizing about the pain of significant others. A convenient sample of individuals currently in a romantic relationship (N=148) completed self-report measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance, neuroticism, self-esteem, pain catastrophizing, and significant other pain catastrophizing. Multiple regression analyses indicated that attachment anxiety accounted for unique variance in pain catastrophizing and each of its lower-order components (i.e., rumination, magnification, helplessness), beyond that accounted for by the personality variables. Attachment avoidance was negatively associated with the rumination component of catastrophizing, but this association was only found after controlling for attachment anxiety. The attachment dimensions were also associated with some components of significant other pain catastrophizing. Anxiety was positively associated with the helplessness component of significant other pain catastrophizing, and avoidance was negatively associated with the rumination and helplessness components of significant other pain catastrophizing. Future research directions regarding the social context of pain are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 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".