Attachment and Couple Satisfaction: The Mediating Effect of Approach and Avoidance Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satisfactory couple relationships are demonstrated to have a myriad of benefits. However, the ability to establish couple satisfaction is shown to be strongly and negatively impacted by insecure romantic attachment patterns (i.e., anxious and avoidant attachment). This study sought to gain an enhanced understanding of the aforementioned link by means of investigating a novel mediator model incorporating two facets of romantic commitment: approach commitment (the desire to maintain a relationship due to benefits inherent within this) and avoidance commitment (the desire to maintain a relationship to avoid potential losses resulting from relationship dissolution). Bootstrap analyses demonstrated that insecure attachments were differentially related to commitment goals, such that anxious attachment was related with higher approach and avoidance commitment. Conversely, while avoidant attachment was negatively linked with approach commitment goals, no relation was revealed with avoidance commitment goals. Additionally, results demonstrated that one's idiosyncratic commitment goals partially mediated the strongly established link between insecure attachment and couple satisfaction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".