A latent profile analysis of romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted latent profile analyses on community (n = 1663) and clinical (n = 575) samples to determine whether continuous scores of attachment anxiety and avoidance would lead to the identification of theoretically consistent and clinically useful profiles. We then compared these profiles according to gender, relationship status, psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction. Analysis on the community sample yielded four profiles: secure, preoccupied, dismissive, and fearful individuals; whereas, the clinical sample yielded three profiles: secure, preoccupied, and fearful individuals. In the community sample, there was a higher proportion of women under the preoccupied profile and a higher proportion of men under the dismissive profile compared with the other profiles. Overall, insecure individuals reported higher levels of relationship dissatisfaction and psychological distress, and a relationship status reflecting lower commitment. Our findings suggest that the Experiences in Close Relationships scale could be useful in assisting therapists in conceptualizing their cases according to their patients' attachment profile.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".