Hopes of affiliation and fears of rejection: The effects of attachment anxiety on behaviour and outcomes in initial interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has demonstrated that attachment anxiety undermines our ongoing relationships; however, less is known about the role anxiety plays in the context of relationship initiation (Creasey & Jarvis, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). The present research therefore explored how attachment anxiety affects people's behaviour and outcomes in initial interactions. The first manuscript presents two studies using a social dilemma game paradigm. In the first study, chronic attachment anxiety was associated with uncertainty about cooperation and longer decision latencies in selecting their behaviour. In the second study, the contextual activation of attachment security was used to ameliorate the effects of chronic anxiety. The next two manuscripts examined more overtly interpersonal contexts. In the second manuscript, field data collected at speed-dating demonstrated that attachment anxiety was associated with lower romantic selectivity that is, more anxious participants made attempts to pursue further contact with a larger number of potential dating partners and decreased romantic popularity more anxious participants were pursued for further contact by fewer potential dating partners. In a signal detection analysis, it was shown that more anxious participants were therefore making more false alarms, or maximizing the number of failed relationship initiation attempts. Finally, the third manuscript sought to test a meditational model, wherein the link between attachment anxiety and negative social outcomes in initial interactions was mediated by theory-derived interpersonal displays. In a first study, participants filmed a video introducing themselves to an attractive, available confederate in another room; these videos were coded by peer research assistants. In a second study, participants engaged in speed-dating and were evaluated by potential dating partners. In a third study, participants engaged in a semi-structured, 40 minute interaction with a confederate. Video
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".