The Relationship between Adult Attachment Style and Perceived Knowledge of Partner Sex History among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has extensively studied adult attachment theory, a fundamental psychological framework, particularly regarding its implications for adult attachment and sexual dynamics. The previous literature has established relationships between adult attachment and various sexual behaviours as well as communication patterns. Specifically, individuals with secure attachment styles typically engage in open communication and cautious sexual behaviours, whereas individuals with anxious or avoidant attachment styles exhibit less sexual communication and engage in riskier sexual activities. That said, limited research has explored the relationship between adult attachment style and perceived knowledge regarding partner sex history. This study aimed to fill this gap by investigating how adult attachment style relates to perceived knowledge about partner sexual experiences. A sample of 237 undergraduate students completed surveys assessing attachment style and their perceived awareness of their partner’s sexual past. Attachment style was evaluated using the Revised Adult Attachment Scale (RAAS) and perceived knowledge was measured using the Partner Sexual History Scale (PSHS). The results indicated a significant correlation between adult attachment style and perceived knowledge of a partner’s sexual history. Specifically, individuals with secure and avoidant attachment styles demonstrated greater perceived awareness of their partner’s sexual experiences compared to those with an anxious attachment style. This research contributes to our comprehension of the complex interplay among adult attachment, sexual knowledge, sexual communication, and relationship dynamics in young adult populations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".