MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133440058 · doi:10.1353/mpq.2014.0000

An attachment perspective on anger among adolescents

2014· article· en· W2133440058 on OpenAlexaff
Chiaki Konishi, Shelley Hymel

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalCommons - WayneState (Wayne State University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngerPsychologyDysfunctional familyAnxietyStructural equation modelingPerspective (graphical)Developmental psychologyAttachment theoryClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extending John Bowlby’s hypothesis that dysfunctional anger is a predictable outcome of insecure attachments to parents, this study investigated the relationship between current parent–adolescent attachment and both the experience and expression of anger. Participants included 776 students (379 boys and 397 girls) in grades 8–12. As predicted by attachment theory, results of structural equation modeling analyses indicated that adolescents’ self-reported attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance toward both mother and father figures were positively related to the adolescents’ greater levels of self-reported anger intensity. In turn, greater intensity of anger was associated with higher levels of both internalizing (anger-in) and externalizing (anger-out) expressions. In addition, there was a direct effect of attachment anxiety on internalized but not externalized anger. This study highlights the importance of differentiating anger dimensions and the critical role of anger intensity as a mediator of the relationship between insecure attachment and anger expressions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalCommons - WayneState (Wayne State University)Same topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207