Attachment: the mediating role of hope, religiosity, and life satisfaction in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attachment and support from family and friends are core to the experiences of ageing for older adults. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between attachment styles and hope, religiosity, and life satisfaction and provide new knowledge that may assist future planning for a rapidly ageing global population. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 504 Iranian older adult participants from Qazvin province were recruited between December 2015 and April 2016. They completed a questionnaire that included the Revised Adult Attachment Scale, the Life Satisfaction Index-Z, and the Herth Hope Index. RESULTS: Participants in the study had a mean age of 66.20 years (SD: 5.76) and most of them were women (57.5%). A mediation model testing the direct relationships between attachment, hope, religiosity, and life satisfaction showed a positive relationship between close attachment and religiosity (β = .226, p < .001) and a negative relationship between anxiety attachment and religiosity (β = - .229, p < .001). Religiosity was positively related to hope (β = .384, p < .01) and hope was related to life satisfaction (β = .448, p < .001). Religiosity and hope mediated the relationship between close attachment (β = .119, p < .001) and anxiety attachment (β = - .056, p < .01) with life satisfaction. More specifically, while religiosity and hope fully mediated the relationship between close attachment and life satisfaction, they partially mediated the attachment anxiety-life satisfaction link. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of the study provide insight into only a narrow perspective of life satisfaction and attachment given the many and varied variables that influence these constructs. Future research is needed whereby other related variables are introduced into the model to be examined further.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".