Attachment, Relational Maintenance Behaviors and Relationship Quality in Romantic Long-Distance Relationships: A Dyadic Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested an actor-partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM) in which dyadic relational maintenance behaviors (RMBs) mediate the relationship between romantic attachment (i.e., anxious and avoidant) and multiple indicators of relationship quality among couples in long-distance relationships (LDRs). Data were collected from 137 couples (women’s mean age = 20.37 years; men’s mean age = 21.93) who were in a serious romantic LDR and who completed an attachment measure, a measure of dyadic RMBs, and four measures of relationship quality (i.e., relationship satisfaction, relational commitment, closeness with the partner, and connection with others). Path analyses revealed significant actor and partner effects. Moreover, a total mediation between women’s anxious attachment and both partners’ relationship quality, and a partial mediation between men’s and women’s avoidant attachment and their own relationship quality were uncovered. Overall, the results suggest that, for couples in LDRs, one partner’s behaviors, cognitions, or emotions influence each member of the dyad as well as the quality of the relationship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".