Comparisons of close relationships: An evaluation of relationship quality and patterns of attachment to parents, friends, and romantic partners in young adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two theoretical models of attachment have been proposed. The trait model conceptualizes attachment as a general personality characteristic of an individual, whereas the context model conceptualizes attachments as relationship-specific. Participant-parent relationship quality, attachment patterns in relationships to friends, and attachment patterns in relationships to romantic partners were examined to determine whether participants experience one general, trait-like attachment orientation or whether attachment patterns are context-specific. A sample of 2,214 young adults (76% female) aged between 17 and 25 years was recruited for participation from psychology courses offered at their university of study. Students completed a survey package including five self-report measures evaluating relational dimensions in relationships to parents, friends, and romantic partners, in addition to one self-report measure of psychological well-being. Participants in couple relationships also completed two self-report measures of dyadic well-being. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses support the conceptualization of attachment patterns as context-specific variables because findings revealed distinctions between attachment patterns/quality of relationship to parents, friends, and romantic partners. Results from regression analyses suggest that such relationships contribute differently to participants’ psychological well-being and dyadic functioning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".