Change in attachment to the therapy group generalizes to change in individual attachment among women with binge eating disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment to groups is analogous to attachment to individuals, and may play an important role in group functioning and in group psychotherapy outcomes. This study examined whether attachment to the therapy group can change during treatment, and whether such change predicts improvements in treatment outcomes, including individual attachment, up to 1 year posttreatment. Eighty-seven women with binge eating disorder (BED) attended Group Psychodynamic Interpersonal Psychotherapy (GPIP). Participants were assigned to one of two conditions in which groups were homogeneously composed of women with either higher or lower individual attachment anxiety. Outcomes were assessed pre, post, 6 months, and 1 year posttreatment. Attachment to the group was assessed at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16 of GPIP. Group attachment insecurity decreased significantly during treatment. Reductions in group attachment avoidance predicted decreases in individual attachment insecurity at 1 year posttreatment. Study condition did not moderate these associations. These results indicate that women with BED who receive GPIP are able to generalize improvements in group attachment security to their individual attachment relationships outside of therapy up to 1 year post group treatment.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".