Associations between Adult Attachment Dimensions And Attitudes Toward Pain Behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the important role positive reinforcement of pain behaviour is believed to play in chronic pain, there is a paucity of research regarding factors that influence the provision of such reinforcement. Attachment theory suggests that individuals high in attachment avoidance view the pain behaviour of others in a negative manner and would, therefore, provide little reinforcement of pain behaviour. As an initial step in evaluating this model, relationships between attachment dimensions and attitudes toward pain behaviour were examined. Attachment avoidance was hypothesized to be negatively associated with accepting attitudes toward pain behaviour. METHODS: A sample of undergraduate students (n=160) completed the Relationships Structures Questionnaire, which provides global ratings of adult attachment dimensions (anxiety and avoidance) by assessing attachment across four relationship targets (friend, mother, father and romantic partner). Attitudes regarding the acceptability of pain behaviour were assessed using male and female versions of the Appropriate Pain Behaviour Questionnaire (APBQ). RESULTS: Consistent with the hypothesis, attachment avoidance was negatively correlated with both APBQ-Female and APBQ-Male scores. Multiple regression analyses were used to investigate the relationships between the attachment scales and the APBQ scales while statistically adjusting for sex and testing for interaction effects. The findings revealed complex relationships involving interaction effects that provided further support for the hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provided support for the hypothesis that attachment avoidance is associated with less accepting attitudes toward pain behaviour. Additional research regarding the role of attachment and attitudes on responses to pain behaviour is warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".