Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment theory is one of the major theoretical frameworks for understanding romantic relationships. Attachment styles are formed through interactions with caregivers, and shape an individual’s expectations of subsequent interpersonal relationships. In this study, we examined how attachment styles influence a participant’s ability to communicate with the partner about problems in their sexual relationship. A community sample of 81 couples engaged in two video-recorded discussions, one representing an aspect of the couple’s sexual relationship where the male partner wanted change and the second representing an aspect of the sexual relationship where the female partner wanted change. Conversations were then coded, with each person being rated on three positive communication dimensions (positive affect, offering solutions, and responsiveness) and three negative communication dimensions (hostility, negative affect, and unskilled communication behaviours). Two factors were then created for each partner: one for the positive dimension and one for the negative dimension of that individual’s sexual communication. As predicted, attachment avoidance was related to more negative and less positive communication for both the individual and his/her partner. Our observational data did not reveal any significant effects of attachment anxiety on an individual’s own communication behaviour or the partner’s communication behaviours. These results can be contrasted with findings from self-report studies that do suggest that an anxious attachment adversely impacts sexual communication.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".