The role of adult attachment and alexithymia in dyadic adjustment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it