Relationship between Attachment Styles and Empathy in Young Adults: Mediating Role of Interpersonal Mindfulness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This research was conducted to examine the mediating role of interpersonal mindfulness in the relationship between attachment styles and empathy level in young adults. Method: The study group consisted of 476 young adults studying at various universities in Turkey who had experience in romantic relationships. The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 30 (M=21.00±1.86). Research data were collected using Personal Information Form, Toronto Empathy Scale, Interpersonal Mindfulness Scale, and Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised-Short Form. Results: Significant negative correlations were found between anxious attachment and interpersonal mindfulness (r=-.25) and empathy (r=-.14) scores. Negative correlations were found between avoidant attachment and interpersonal mindfulness (r=-.15) and empathy (r=-.11) scores. Furthermore, a positive and significant relationship was found between interpersonal mindfulness and empathy (r=.47) scores. According to the results of the mediation analysis, while the direct effect of anxiety and avoidance levels of young adults on empathy was not significant, the indirect effect and total effect were found to be significant. Conclusion: Anxious and avoidant attachment styles in young adults significantly predicted empathy level and that interpersonal mindfulness mediated this relationship. This result suggests that problems in close relationships may be associated with attachment styles and interpersonal mindfulness.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".