MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390726315 · doi:10.1177/00332941241226907

Attachment Anxiety and Nomophobia: A Moderated Parallel Mediation Model

2024· article· en· W4390726315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuan Liang

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleAnxietyMediationFeelingClinical psychologyAttachment theoryDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

is the state of being anxious or disturbed when feeling disconnected from the digital world and can have a significant impact on individuals' health and well-being. Drawing upon attachment theory and the previous literature on nomophobia, this study aims to understand how attachment anxiety influences nomophobia and whether this relationship differs between males and females. In the Human Penguin Project (HPP) (N = 1221; 12 countries; participants aged ≥20 years), the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire-Revised (ECR-R), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q) were used to assess attachment anxiety, alexithymia, perceived stress, and nomophobia, respectively. The results demonstrated that (1) there were significant positive correlations between attachment anxiety, nomophobia, alexithymia, and perceived stress. Additionally, (2) there was a direct and significant effect of attachment anxiety on nomophobia, and alexithymia and perceived stress partially mediated this relationship. Finally, (3) gender significantly moderated the relationship between attachment anxiety and nomophobia. Specifically, the predicted effect was significant in both males and females, but the direct effect of attachment anxiety and nomophobia was stronger in males.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207