Dyadic empathy following childhood trauma: The role of hostile attribution bias in young adult couples.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cumulative childhood interpersonal trauma (CCIT) is associated with important outcomes within romantic relationships, including lower dyadic empathy. Dyadic empathy is comprised of perspective-taking, that is, putting oneself in the partner's place, and empathic concern, that is, emotions felt toward the partner's emotional experience. As empathic difficulties may affect the quality of romantic relationships, it is important to better understand the mechanisms underlying the links between CCIT and empathy toward a partner. Hostile attribution bias (i.e., the tendency to perceive others' intentions as negative), being positively linked to CCIT and negatively associated with empathy, appears to be a relevant, yet unexplored, mechanism in the link between CCIT and dyadic empathy. The present study examined the role of hostile attribution bias in the dyadic associations linking one's CCIT to their own as well as their partner's perspective-taking and empathic concern. METHOD: A sample of 190 couples aged 18 to 29 completed online questionnaires. RESULTS: One's CCIT was positively related to their own hostile attribution bias, which was negatively associated with both their own perspective-taking and their partner's empathic concern. CONCLUSION: Targeting hostile attributions among individuals with CCIT might constitute an interesting pathway to enhance their own and their partner's empathy within the relationship and, therefore, foster positive couple dynamics during young adulthood. (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 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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".