Associations of attachment avoidance and anxiety with life satisfaction, satisfaction with singlehood, and desire for a romantic partner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Living single is becoming increasingly common worldwide and understanding within‐group predictors of well‐being among singles is becoming a stronger research priority. Although Pepping, MacDonald, and Davis suggested individual differences in attachment security may be useful for predicting singles' well‐being, there are no published data on the issue. In this research, single participants ( N = 1930; 49% men; M age = 31 years; 75% White) completed measures of attachment security as well as measures of life satisfaction, satisfaction with singlehood, and desire for a romantic partner. The data suggested that higher levels of attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety were both associated with lower levels of life satisfaction as well as satisfaction with singlehood. However, when controlling for life satisfaction, attachment avoidance was not associated with satisfaction with singlehood. We also found that higher levels of attachment avoidance were associated with less desire for a romantic partner whereas higher levels of attachment anxiety were associated with stronger desire for a partner. Our findings suggest that individual differences in attachment security may indeed be useful in predicting well‐being‐related outcomes for singles.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".