Attachment Dimensions and Young Children’s Response to Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the relationship between attachment dimensions and child pain behaviour following both an everyday pain incident (eg, bumps and scrapes) and acute pain incident (eg, immunization) in 66 five-year-old children. METHODS: Secure, avoidant, ambivalent and controlling attachment dimensions were assessed using aggregates of laboratory-based reunion behaviour, performance on representational measures of attachment and the measure of emotion regulation. Child pain behaviour, during immunization and everyday pain incidents, was rated in terms of reactivity, anger and calming time. RESULTS: The ambivalence and controlling attachment dimensions were differentially related to child pain behaviour. Specifically, children with either more ambivalent or controlling attachment had a relatively greater reaction to both the immunization procedure and everyday pain incident. Children with more controlling attachment also took more time to calm down following the immunization and displayed greater anger. Security and avoidance, however, were not systematically related to child pain behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Results are discussed in terms of Bowlby's theory of attachment relationships and pain as an important distress signal to children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".