Attachment Anxiety as a Barrier to the Benefits of Novel Couple Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel and exciting couple activities have been found to increase satisfaction in couples (e.g., Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000), but only if both members enjoy the exciting activity (Girme, Overall, & Faingataa, 2014). We hypothesized that attachment anxiety might thwart the enjoyment and effectiveness of novel couple activities because of perceived threats to the security of the relationship. Undergraduate students (N = 154) who were in a romantic relationship completed online questionnaires. Consistent with our hypothesis, higher attachment anxiety was associated with decreased couple enjoyment (as perceived by the participant). However, contrary to our hypotheses, higher attachment anxiety was not associated with greater willingness to engage in an unappealing partner-initiated novel couple activity, or with decreased perceived benefits to the relationship. Furthermore, consistent with our guiding hypothesis, in exploratory analyses, we found that people who scored higher on attachment anxiety were more likely to be motivated to engage in the unappealing partner-initiated novel couple activity because of threat-related concerns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".