Attachment expectations moderate links between social support and maternal adjustment from 6 to 18 months postpartum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant links exist between one's perception of available social support and mental health outcomes, including during the transition to motherhood. Yet, attachment theory posits that individuals do not benefit equally from social support. As such, we examined the influence of attachment representations (i.e., secure base script knowledge) as they potentially moderate links between social support and psychological distress in a 1-year longitudinal study of an ethnically diverse (56% White) sample of infant-mother dyads. We hypothesized that higher social support would predict lower maternal psychological distress and this relation would be strongest in those with higher secure base script knowledge. Results indicated that maternal perceptions of social support were significantly negatively correlated with psychological distress. Analyses revealed that secure base script scores significantly moderated these associations. Interestingly, for those high in script knowledge, low social support predicted greater psychological distress. For those low in script knowledge, social support was unrelated to psychological distress. This pattern suggested that those who expect care (i.e., high secure base script knowledge) but receive minimal support (i.e., low perceived social support) find motherhood uniquely dysregulating. Practitioners may do well to examine individuals' attachment expectations in relation to their current social support.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".