Felt Security in Daily Interactions as a Mediator of the Effect of Attachment on Relationship Satisfaction†Some of the Results Reported in this Article Were Previously Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Interpersonal Theory and Research in Montreal, Canada (May 2012).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how felt security in interpersonal situations with one's romantic partner mediated the effect of global (dispositional) attachment on relationship satisfaction. Felt security was measured using an event–contingent recording (ECR) methodology with a sample of 93 cohabiting couples who reported their social interactions with each other during a 20–day period. Global attachment was measured at the beginning of the ECR procedure. Relationship satisfaction was measured at the end of the ECR procedure (T1) and approximately 7 months after the ECR procedure (T2). Results confirmed the established links between attachment and relationship satisfaction such that higher attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety were associated with decline in satisfaction over time. Results also indicated that attachment avoidance but not attachment anxiety was negatively related to felt security, both within–partner and across–partners. As expected, lower felt security exerted a negative effect on relationship satisfaction at T1 and T2, and partly mediated the effect of attachment avoidance on relationship satisfaction at T1 and T2, both within–partner and across–partners. Partners’ gender emerged as a moderator of these results. Findings suggest higher attachment avoidance leads to less felt security in daily social interactions, which leads to less satisfaction with the romantic relationship. Copyright © 2015 European Association of Personality Psychology
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".