Dating disagreements in adolescents: The role of daily romantic attachment and stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dating disagreements consist of divergences between partners’ opinions or needs. When left unresolved, dating disagreements may escalate into conflicts and even sometimes, to dating violence perpetration (DVP). Several risk factors have been documented for conflicts and DVP in adolescents, such as stress, attachment insecurities, and prior DVP, but they have never been explored in association with the events that usually precede conflicts and DVP: disagreements. This study aimed to examine (1) how adolescents’ variations in daily stress and attachment are associated with their probability of experiencing daily disagreements and their resolutions, and (2) whether adolescents’ DVP history moderates these associations. A sample of 216 dating adolescents answered a baseline questionnaire measuring DVP in the prior year and completed a 14-day online assessment of their stress, attachment states (anxiety, avoidance), dating disagreement occurrence, and resolution. Multilevel models indicated that on days when adolescents reported being more stressed or avoidant than usual, probability of disagreement occurrence was higher and of resolution weaker. Interaction effects of prior DVP were found for within and between-level attachment anxiety and between-level stress. Daily variations in stress and attachment may make adolescents vulnerable to disagreement, notably for those with prior DVP experiences. These findings support the relevance of examining daily variations in risk factors of dating disagreements and provide cues to enhance healthy dating relationships promotion programs developed for youth.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".