The role of adult attachment and alexithymia in dyadic adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate if romantic attachment dimensions and alexithymia could significantly predict the dyadic adjustment of individuals in a romantic relationship. To achieve these goals, 410 participants, who were in a romantic relationship, were asked to complete an anonymous online survey, which included the following measures: Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Experience in Close Relationship Scale and Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The hierarchical regression analysis revealed that only avoidant attachment style was a significant predictor of dyadic adjustment in the final model. However, alexithymia was found to be negatively and indirectly associated with dyadic adjustment through the effect of avoidant attachment. Indeed, avoidant attachment significantly mediated the association between alexithymia and dyadic adjustment. We used self-report measures, and we adopted a cross-sectional design. The sample comprised a higher number of women and well-educated participants. The current findings highlight the importance, from a clinical perspective, of paying attention to the planning of tailored psychological treatments directed at individuals who are in a relationship to reduce the levels of insecure attachment and alexithymia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".