The ebbs and flows of attachment: Within-person variation in attachment undermine secure individuals’ relationship wellbeing across time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although attachment security is relatively stable over time, individuals do experience significant within-person variation in their attachment security across time. No research to date, however, has assessed the relational consequences of within-person variation (fluctuations) in attachment security toward a specific attachment figure. Study 1 (N = 409) first examined whether attachment security was associated with individuals' expectations that their current intimate relationship would be stable and consistent over time (vs. inconsistent and unstable). Studies 2 and 3 extended this by examining the prevalence and consequences of actual within-person variation (fluctuations) in relationship-specific attachment security toward an intimate partner in 2 multiwave longitudinal studies that assessed individuals (Study 2, N = 324) and couples (Study 3, N = 171 dyads). The results indicate that secure individuals (those low in attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance) expect their current relationship to remain relatively stable and consistent over time (Study 1). However, Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that most individuals do experience fluctuations in their relationship-specific attachment security. Moreover, greater fluctuations predict declines in relationship satisfaction (Studies 2 and 3) and increases in relationship distress (Study 3) over time, but primarily for secure individuals (those low in baseline attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance). This set of findings highlight the importance of examining within-person fluctuations in attachment security, which are associated with declines in trajectories of relationship wellbeing, particularly for secure individuals who anticipate greater stability in their relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".