Demand‐avoid‐withdraw processes in adolescent dating aggression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted an observational study of a collection of interactive processes known as "demand-withdraw" in relation to adolescent dating aggression. Couples (N = 209) aged 14-18 years participated in a challenging observational laboratory assessment to measure demands (i.e., pressures for a change), as well as demand → partner withdraw and demand → partner avoid sequences. Actor and partner effects were disentangled via dyadic data analyses. The results indicated a fairly consistent pattern in which demand → withdraw and demand → avoid sequences led by either partner were positively associated with both partners' physical and psychological aggression (measured via a dual informant questionnaire method). Further, higher quality demands (i.e., pressures for change that were specific and encouraged both members of the dyad to increase a given behavior) were inversely associated with aggression. Yet, all of the above associations were attenuated to the point of statistical nonsignificance after controlling for hostility. These results suggest two primary possibilities. The associations of demand → withdraw and demand → avoid sequences with dating aggression may be spurious, with the sequences merely markers for hostility, a known correlate of dating aggression. Alternatively, hostility may mediate the relations of demand → withdraw and demand → avoid sequences with dating aggression. Further research is required to test these competing explanations. Implications for preventive intervention 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it