Greater average levels of relatedness need fulfilment across daily and monthly life predict lower attachment insecurities across time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment insecurity is characterized by chronic concerns about whether partners can fulfil core relatedness needs, including feeling loved and cared about. In two longitudinal studies, our aim was to extend current evidence that certain relationship conditions buffer attachment insecurity by (1) focusing on the central ingredient—fulfilment of relatedness needs—that likely account for buffering effects, and (2) illustrate the importance of general experiences of relatedness need fulfilment across couples’ lives. Couple members completed initial assessments of attachment insecurity, reported on the fulfilment of relatedness needs every month for 6 months (Study 1) or daily for 3 weeks (Study 2), and then completed re-assessments of attachment insecurity 6-months (Study 1) or 9-months (Study 2) later. Across both studies, greater fulfilment of relatedness needs across monthly and daily relationship life predicted decreases in attachment anxiety and avoidance. General experiences of relatedness across couples’ lives appear to reflect a relationship environment that fulfils core needs for love, care, and regard that cultivate attachment security.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".