The Role of Emotional Processes in Explaining the Link Between Severity of Childhood Maltreatment and Relationship Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to 32% of adults have experienced some form of childhood maltreatment (CM). Research has shown that these early childhood experiences are associated with a variety of interpersonal difficulties in adult sexual and romantic relationships. Polusny and Follette have suggested that these negative long-term effects are the result of emotional avoidance strategies that individuals use to cope with thoughts, feelings, and memories associated with CM. The present study tested this theorized mediational model with a sample of 150 participants, all of whom were currently in long-term relationships. Participants completed questionnaires designed to assess the severity of CM, fear of their own emotions, and a task designed to assess their accuracy at identifying emotions. Additionally, participants completed a variety of measures assessing the quality of their sexual and romantic relationships. These measures assessed their satisfaction, their communication, and the extent of problems in each domain. Our results showed that higher levels of CM were associated with lower satisfaction with communication and more problems in both the romantic and sexual domains. In regard to our mediational hypothesis, we found partial support showing that fear of one's own emotions and emotion recognition mediated some of these associations. Our findings suggest that treatments targeting affective processes may be particularly important for helping victims of CM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".