Is Our Attachment Hurting Us? Unraveling the Associations Between Partners' Attachment Pairings, Negative Emotions During Conflict, and Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment insecurities and heightened negative emotions during conflict are significant risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV). Previous research mainly examined each partner's attachment separately and overlooked negative emotions as a mechanism in the attachment-IPV link. This dyadic observational study conducted among 178 young adult couples examined (1) the interplay between both partners' attachment (i.e., pairings) in association with their IPV perpetration and (2) the contribution of negative emotions during a conflict discussion in these associations. Results revealed that one's avoidance was positively linked with their IPV only when their partner showed low levels of avoidance. One's avoidance was also indirectly associated with their own IPV through their own negative emotions, and to their partner's IPV via their partner's negative emotions. Finally, one's anxiety was indirectly linked with their own IPV through their own negative emotions. Findings support prevention and intervention strategies for IPV that target attachment and negative emotions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".