Attachment predicts transgression frequency and reactions in romantic couples’ daily life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the associations between individual differences in romantic attachment and transgression frequency and reactions in daily life. Data from both members of the heterosexual relationship were collected to examine how a persons’ attachment orientation influenced their own and their partner’s perceived transgressions and reactions to these transgressions. Across 10 days, 139 heterosexual couples reported on perceived transgressions by their partner. If transgressions occurred, they also reported on subsequent reactions such as forgiveness and rumination. Actor–partner interdependence models were used to investigate actor and partner effects of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance on the number of experienced transgressions and reactions to transgressions. Attachment anxiety was not predictive with respect to any of the outcomes of interest. Higher attachment avoidance predicted fewer transgressions and more revenge in reaction to transgressions in men but not in women. Higher levels of attachment avoidance predicted more avoidance and rumination following a transgression. Additionally, a partner effect from attachment avoidance to avoidant reaction was observed. Findings are discussed regarding how attachment may account for differences in appraisal processes and emotion regulation strategies when confronted with relational transgressions.
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".