A Signal Detection Analysis of Chronic Attachment Anxiety at Speed Dating: Being Unpopular Is Only the First Part of the Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initiating a romantic relationship invokes an approach-avoidance conflict between the desire for affiliation and the fear of rejection; optimally, people should selectively approach potential partners who reciprocate their interest. This may be difficult for anxiously attached people: They may be unpopular, and their ambivalence could lead to either a fearfully selective approach at the cost of missed opportunities or an unselective, indiscriminate approach at the cost of increasing rejection. Using a speed-dating paradigm, data were collected from 116 participants, and a signal detection framework was applied to examine the outcomes. For anxious participants, speed-dating attendance was motivated by loneliness. At speed dating, they were unpopular and unselective; they missed fewer opportunities but made more failed attempts. Anxious men made fewer matches than nonanxious men, whereas anxious women were buffered by having a response bias toward saying "yes" to potential partners. Attachment anxiety predicted outcomes above and beyond the powerful impact of attractiveness.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".