Exploring Insecure Romantic Attachment and Justifications for the Use of Intimate Partner Psychological Aggression in Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attachment theory has commonly been used to examine intimate partner psychological aggression (IPPA), but few studies have examined its association with self-reported justifications for one's own use of IPPA. Behaviors, including the use of IPPA, are influenced, maintained, and function within the context of their justifications, highlighting the importance of investigating these justifications to obtain a clearer picture of IPPA. This study examined whether insecure romantic attachment (i.e., attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance) in both partners of a couple was associated with their justifications for their own use of IPPA. A community sample of 81 mixed-sex couples who reported using IPPA in the last year completed self-reported questionnaires on adult romantic attachment and their justifications for their use of IPPA. Results of a path analysis based on the actor-partner interdependence model revealed moderate positive associations between attachment anxiety and one's use of internal and external justifications for their IPPA perpetration in men and women. An unexpected dyadic positive association is discussed. These results suggest that the use of justifications for one's use of IPPA may reflect a strategy of hyperactivation that could contribute to the cycle of psychological aggression. Uncovering the function of these justifications could provide important therapeutic benefits, which are discussed in the study's implications.
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".