Approach and avoidance motives for touch are predicted by attachment and predict daily relationship well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research suggests that touch promotes relationship well-being but has failed to consider motives for touch. We assessed general (Study 1) and daily (Study 2) approach and avoidance motives for touch and tested their precursors and consequences. Controlling for relationship quality and the other motive, greater attachment avoidance predicted lower approach and greater avoidance motives for touch in general but did not predict motives in daily life. Greater attachment anxiety simultaneously predicted greater approach and avoidance motives for touch in both studies suggesting anxiously attached people have ambivalent motives for touch. Critically, one’s own and one’s partner’s approach motives for touch predicted greater daily relationship well-being, whereas own and partner avoidance motives predicted poorer daily relationship well-being. We observed indirect effects linking attachment insecurity to relationship well-being through daily motives for touch. These results underscore the importance of attending to touch motives in future work, including future intervention work.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".