General and Specific Attachment Representations in Adulthood: Is there a Relationship?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social and relational research assessing adult attachment often appears to be based on the assumption that adults operate, in their interpersonal relationships, with a single internal working model of attachment. The current investigation explored attachment from an alternative perspective. We hypothesized that most adults will rate their attachment orientations differently depending on the relationship context in which the ratings are taken. We also expected that general measures of attachment, taken outside the context of specific relationships, would vary from attachment ratings adults report when they are referring to specific attachment relationships. Two hundred and twenty-four participants responded to a survey containing standardized measures (RQ: Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) assessing Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, and Dismissing attachment styles in four self-identified attachment relationships. The RQ was also used to measure general attachment orientations. Results indicated that the majority of adults rated themselves differently on each of the Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, and Dismissing dimensions of the RQ across their various attachment relationships and that attachment ratings measured in response to specific attachment relationships were not equivalent to the attachment ratings measured outside the context of specific attachment relationships. This study sheds light on the associations between specific and general attachment tendencies and raises some concerns about conceptualization and measurement of adult attachment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".