The contributory roles of attachment styles, coping and affect regulation strategies on bereavement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grieving is a normal reaction to the loss of a loved one. According to the attachment theory, individual’s attachment style plays an important role in determining individual differences following loss. Firstly, in the present study, it was aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Two Track Model of Bereavement Questionnaire (TTBQ). With this aim, the data was collected from 206 individuals who lost a significant one. It was found that Turkish version of the TTBQ(TTBQ-T) had a Cronbach Alpha of .91, which indicates that TTBQ-T has a good internal consistency. Also, factor analysis yieded a 5 factor solution. Secondly, in the main study the mediation role of coping styles and affect regulation strategies were examined. The sample consisted of 200 bereaved individuals who lost a significant loved one. In this study,the role of attachment style on bereavement was supported. However, only anxious attachment style significantly predicted poor social functioning. Also, fatalistic coping style was found to lead to more intense grief, whereas helplessness coping style was found to be related to poor social functioning.Moreover, it was shown that difficulties in affect regulation mediated the relationship between anxious attachment style and poor social functioning.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".