Partners’ attachment insecurity predicts greater physiological threat in anticipation of attachment-relevant interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether anticipating interacting with a partner higher in attachment insecurity predicted greater physiological threat in an emotion regulation context. Eighty-eight couples watched an emotionally negative film clip, prepared to discuss the video with their partner, and then engaged in a conversation. One dyad member ( regulator) was randomly assigned to express versus suppress affective displays while his/ her partner ( target) was given no additional instructions. Greater partner avoidance was associated with stronger physiological responses consistent with the experience of threat—sympathetic arousal coupled with increased vascular resistance—when regulators anticipated suppressing versus expressing affective displays. Greater partner anxiety was associated with greater physiological threat responses regardless of the emotion regulation context. Threat responses also manifested during the conversation: Regulators and targets with highly avoidant partners exhibited greater threat responses when suppressing versus expressing affective displays. Additionally, more insecure partners found the conversation more difficult. These data are the first to show that anticipating attachment-relevant interactions with more insecure partners elicit cardiovascular responses diagnostic of threat.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".