Group member attachment style interacts with actor and partner helping alliance to predict decreasing binge eating episodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An individual's attachment style may impact how they interact with their therapy group. This study examined the moderating role of a group member's attachment on the dynamic relationships between that group member's (actor) and other group members' (partner) therapeutic alliances and symptom outcomes. Method: This is a secondary analysis of data from a trial testing the outcome of emotionally-focused group therapy for binge-eating disorder. The sample consisted of 2,360 sessions nested within 118 group members who attended a 20-session treatment. Patients recorded binge eating episodes (BEE), their body weight and an alliance measure session-by-session. RESULTS: Dynamic structural equation modelling showed decreases in BEE and weight over the therapy. When attachment style was not included in the model, higher-than-average partner's alliance scores in the previous session were related to decreases in BEE in the current session. Attachment style moderated these actor and partner effects. For patients with preoccupied attachments, higher-than-average actor alliance in the previous session was related to subsequent decreases in BEE. For patients with dismissing or disorganized attachments, higher partner alliance in the previous session was related to subsequent decreases in BEE. CONCLUSION: Group members' attachment characteristics can play a role in the development of alliance-outcome patterns in group therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".