MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412489157 · doi:10.1037/hea0001532

The social ambivalence and disease model: Childhood trauma as an antecedent factor linking spousal ambivalence to inflammation.

2025· article· en· W4412489157 on OpenAlexaff
Bert N. Uchino, Tracey Tacana, Joshua Landvatter, Brian R. Baucom, Timothy W. Smith, Samantha Joel, Christopher P. Fagundes

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsAmbivalenceAntecedent (behavioral psychology)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsycINFOPsychological interventionClinical psychologyDiseaseMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Ambivalence in relationships is related to health-relevant biological outcomes. However, the antecedent processes that contribute to this association are unknown. The primary aim of this study was to test the prediction of the social ambivalence and disease model, which highlights the potential role of childhood trauma as an antecedent factor linking spousal ambivalence to inflammation. METHOD: A sample of 107 heterosexual couples who had been married for at least 10 years was recruited. Participants completed the social relationship index to assess spousal ambivalence and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Blood was drawn to determine levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 as measures of inflammation. RESULTS: Consistent with the social ambivalence and disease model, there was a significant indirect effect in which childhood trauma was related to greater spousal ambivalence which in turn was associated with higher hs-CRP levels. No evidence for the statistical mediational model was found for interleukin-6. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the potential role of childhood trauma as an antecedent factor linking spousal ambivalence to hs-CRP. It also highlights potential pathways that might be targeted for interventions pending further work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.442 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207