How do I love thee? Let me count the ways: Parenting during adolescence, attachment styles, and romantic narratives in emerging adulthood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this longitudinal study, a quantitative and qualitative examination of the associations among parent-child relations, adult attachment styles, and relationship quality and theme in romantic narratives was conducted. Parenting and adult attachment style were assessed through questionnaires, whereas overall quality of romantic relationships (regard and importance), intimacy, and romantic story theme were examined with a life story approach (McAdams, 1993). At ages 17 and 26 years, 100 participants completed a series of questionnaires and also, at age 26, told a story about a "relationship-defining moment" with a romantic partner. Parent-child relations when participants were 17 years old were related predictably to all three attachment styles. About 70% of the sample told romantic stories with a "true love" type of theme. Associations between parent-child relations when the child was 17 and this type of theme in the story told when the participant was 26 were mediated by a more secure (and a less avoidant) attachment style when the participant was 26, as predicted. The implications of these findings for links between attachment models and the life story 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".