Anxiety doesn’t become you: How attachment anxiety compromises relational opportunities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although research has shown that attachment anxiety is detrimental to ongoing relationships, less is known about whether and how it affects the earliest stages of relationship initiation. How does attachment anxiety affect an initial interaction with a potential relationship partner? The present investigation explored the interpersonal outcomes associated with attachment anxiety in the context of various relational opportunities, testing a mediational model whereby interpersonal displays characteristic of state social anxiety-social disengagement and manifest anxiety-were proposed as mechanisms of interpersonal failure. In Study 1, participants engaged in speed-dating. In Study 2, participants were videotaped introducing themselves to an attractive, single, preferred-sex confederate who would ostensibly be deciding whether to meet them. In Study 3, participants were videotaped having a semistructured 40-min interaction with an attractive, friendly, single, preferred-sex confederate. Across all 3 contexts, attachment anxiety was associated with negative interpersonal outcomes, mediated by displays of social disengagement (Study 2) and manifest anxiety (Studies 1 and 3). The negative displays and outcomes associated with attachment anxiety were expressed behaviorally as verbal disfluencies and interpersonal awkwardness (Study 3). Overall, attachment anxiety was a robust predictor of interpersonal failure when presented with a relational opportunity. Such failures will reinforce the negative expectations underpinning state social anxiety, making it harder for more anxiously attached individuals to initiate and develop the satisfying relationships that might over time help them overcome their relational insecurity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".