Perceptions of Conflict at the Transition to Parenthood: Exploring Adult Attachment Pairings as Predictors of Emotional Flooding
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
Understanding how attachment styles between partners relate to the dysregulation of emotions during couple conflict has received little attention, especially over the transition to parenthood. This research investigated how combinations of expectant couples' attachment styles jointly predict emotional flooding, which is a form of interpersonal emotion dysregulation. Using a sample of 98 mixed-gender couples residing in Canada, we used multilevel modeling to examine actor effects (e.g., one's attachment insecurity predicting their own flooding), partner effects (one's attachment insecurity predicting flooding in their partner), and interactions between partners to examine its association with emotional flooding at the third trimester of pregnancy and across early parenthood. Longitudinally, couples were followed from the third trimester to 4 years postpartum to explore how attachment pairings predicted changes in flooding across parenthood. Attachment anxiety in men predicted their own propensity to become flooded during conflict, as well as their partner's flooding. An interaction was seen at the third trimester, such that men who were avoidantly attached reported greater flooding when their partner was high in anxiety compared to low in anxiety. Finally, men's flooding was associated with greater increases over time when high avoidance in men was paired with low avoidance in women, whereas flooding showed the smallest increase when both partners reported low avoidance. Findings suggest that the fit between each partner's attachment styles can improve understanding of the emotional mechanisms experienced during conflict, especially during the often-stressful period of early parenthood.
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 | 0.000 | 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