Investigating Attachment Insecurity and Somatosensory Amplification, and the Mediating Role of Interpersonal Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Background: Somatosensory amplification involves perceptual sensitivity to and cognitive-affective interpretation of bodily sensations and external stimuli, contributing to heightened experiences of somatic symptoms. However, little is known about somatosensory amplification in relation to vulnerabilities such as attachment insecurity. Aims: The present study investigated the link between attachment insecurity and somatosensory amplification, including the mediating role of dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors. Method: A sample of 245 adult community members completed the Somatosensory Amplification Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, and abbreviated versions of the Experiences in Close Relationships scale and Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Correlational and regression analyses were used to examine relations among study variables, including a hypothesized parallel mediation model. Results: Somatosensory amplification was significantly associated with attachment anxiety, but not attachment avoidance. Regression analyses, controlling for general anxiety symptoms and gender, found that interpersonal sensitivity (but not aggression or ambivalence) mediated the link between attachment anxiety and somatosensory amplification. Limitations: Study limitations include the use of cross-sectional data and a non-clinical sample. Conclusion: The findings indicate that somatosensory amplification may be related to individuals’ attachment anxiety, through the mediating effect of interpersonal sensitivity problems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".