Interpersonal dysfunction in individuals high in chronic worry: relations with interpersonal problem-solving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interpersonal dysfunction has been proposed as an important maintenance factor in chronic worry and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Perceptions of problems and the problem-solving process as threatening, and unhelpful (e.g. avoidant, impulsive) problem-solving styles are implicated in worry and have also been suggested to be associated with dysfunctional interpersonal styles. AIMS: The present study assessed the relationships between interpersonal dysfunction and problem-solving orientation, approach, and effectiveness in a sample of individuals high in chronic worry and investigated the indirect effect of interpersonal dysfunction on GAD symptom severity through negative problem-solving beliefs and approaches. METHOD: Fifty-nine community participants completed questionnaires and an interpersonal problem-solving task. RESULTS: Greater interpersonal dysfunction was significantly associated with greater negative problem-solving orientation and greater habitual avoidant and impulsive/careless problem-solving styles. Greater interpersonal dysfunction was associated with poorer effectiveness of solutions when the task problem involved conflict with a romantic partner. Negative problem-solving orientation fully mediated the relationship between interpersonal dysfunction and GAD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that problem-solving processes are implicated in interpersonal dysfunction and that negative beliefs about problem-solving account for the relationship between interpersonal dysfunction and GAD symptoms. Theoretical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".