Distinguishing Dismissing From Fearful Attachment in the Association Between Closeness and Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When avoidantly attached individuals are simultaneously high in attachment anxiety, they are inclined to experience strong internal conflicts between seeking and avoiding closeness. This research examined whether the extent to which closeness, assessed as the inclusion of other in the self (IOS), is associated with greater commitment varies within individuals high in attachment avoidance as a result of differences in ambivalence toward maintaining the relationship. In two studies ( N 1 = 1,604, N 2 = 2,271), we found that the positive association between IOS and commitment was significantly weaker when attachment avoidance was combined with high (vs. low) attachment anxiety. In Study 2, we found lingering relational ambivalence even at high levels of IOS among individuals simultaneously high in attachment avoidance and anxiety, which in turn was related to relatively low commitment. Our findings highlight the role of relational ambivalence in avoidants’ relationship functioning and the need to examine the interplay of the two attachment dimensions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".