Diversity in singlehood experiences: Testing an attachment theory model of sub‐groups of singles
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
OBJECTIVE: Relationship science has developed several theories to explain how and why people enter and maintain satisfying relationships. Less is known about why some people remain single, despite increasing rates of singlehood throughout the world. Using one of the most widely studied and robust theories-attachment theory-we aim to identify distinct sub-groups of singles and examine whether these sub-groups differ in their experience of singlehood and psychosocial outcomes. METHOD: Across two studies of single adults (Ns = 482 and 400), we used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify distinct sub-groups of singles. RESULTS: Both studies revealed four distinct profiles consistent with attachment theory: (1) secure; (2) anxious; (3) avoidant; and (4) fearful-avoidant. Furthermore, the four sub-groups of singles differed in theoretically distinct ways in their experience of singlehood and on indicators of psychosocial well-being. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that singles are a heterogeneous group of individuals that can be meaningfully differentiated based on individual differences in attachment security.
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 | 0.002 | 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