Facilitating autonomy in interdependent relationships: Invisible support facilitates highly avoidant individuals’ autonomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining autonomy in interdependent relationships is challenging, particularly for people high in attachment avoidance, who prioritize independence. Invisible support involves indirect, subtle behaviors that minimize the salience of dependence and encourage self-driven problem solving and thus should facilitate autonomy. The current research tested whether partners' invisible support during couples' discussions of personal goals (N = 200 dyadic discussions) facilitated goal-related autonomy immediately and across time for recipients high in attachment avoidance. Highly avoidant individuals experienced lower autonomy immediately after dependence-based discussions with their partners, but they experienced the same levels of autonomy as did those low in avoidance when their partners provided greater invisible support. Furthermore, highly avoidant individuals generally experienced lower commitment, but they experienced the same levels of commitment as did those low in avoidance when they experienced greater autonomy. The results illustrate how bridging self-determination and attachment theories advances understanding of how to facilitate need fulfillment in intimate relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".