The Role of Psychological Attachment in Trust Violation and Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpersonal trust is the willingness to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations about another person’s behaviour. A breach in trust occurs when these expectations are not met. Apologies are one way to restore trusting relations and encourage forgiveness. Because past relationships may affect both trust development and forgiveness, I draw on psychological attachment theory for insight into the nature of people’s past relationships. A person may develop one of three attachment styles: secure, anxious, or avoidant. A secure style represents a normal healthy relationship, whereas anxious individuals cling to others and fear rejection and avoidant individuals are self reliant and distance themselves from others. This laboratory experiment tests the extent to which individuals with different attachment styles develop trust with a stranger, change their emotions and reported trust levels after the trust has been violated, and respond to an apology designed to repair trust. To develop trust in the laboratory, participants share information about themselves and complete an obstacle course while blindfolded. Trust violation then occurs during a planned activity early in the experiment, after which half of the participants receive an apology and the other half do not. Questionnaires then assess levels of emotion and trust, which are compared between individuals in the apology and no‐apology conditions. This research may help establish a close relationship between attachment style and trust violation and repair. Future research may look into other ways to repair trust, particularly for insecure individuals who may not respond positively to an apology.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".