The influence of attachment style and fear of intimacy in early adulthood in romantic relationships

Abstract Child and adolescent externalizing problems have often been conceptualized broadly with imprecise language (e.g., “disruptive behavior”) or inconsistently across varying taxonomies (e.g., oppositional defiant and conduct disorder symptoms, aggressive and rule-breaking behaviors). Establishing clarity around dimensions of externalizing problems is an essential step toward more accurate measurement and construct validity across the externalizing domain. To that end, the current study investigated fine-grained dimensions in the structure of youth externalizing psychopathology. Caregiver-report survey data were collected for a national community sample of 576 youth (ages 6–14; 45% female, 25% Hispanic), including measures of irritability, oppositionality, reactive and proactive aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and inattention. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine relations among externalizing dimensions at the item-level followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine relations at the construct-level. EFA results suggested that a 3-factor model best fit the data, including factors characterized by externalizing affect (e.g., “felt mad”), externalizing behavior (e.g., “bullies, threatens, or intimidates others”), and ADHD symptoms (e.g., “talks excessively”), with a few cross-loadings. Similarly, confirmatory models indicated that a 3-factor, non-hierarchical structure fit the data best when compared to three other models. Results provide support for distinct facets of the externalizing spectrum in child psychopathology, suggesting a preliminary direction for a unifying framework. These findings highlight the potential for future measurement research to further disentangle the distinct and overlapping facets of externalizing constructs, particularly using multiple methods and informants and with replication across samples.

Psychological distress during young adulthood may be influenced by early emotional experiences and current interpersonal relationships. The current study investigates the relationship between childhood emotional neglect, peer support and psychological distress in young adults. A quantitative research design was used with 200 participants aged 18-25 years selected through purposive sampling from educational institutions of Lahore. Childhood emotional neglect, peer support and psychological distress were measured with the Childhood Emotional Neglect Questionnaire (CENQ), Multidimensional Scale of Perceived social support (MSPSS), and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), respectively. Data were analyzed using Pearson- product moment correlation, hierarchical regression, PROCESS moderation analysis and one way ANOVA. Childhood emotional neglect was significantly and positively associated with psychological distress while peer support was not significantly and directly associated with psychological distress. Hierarchical regression indicates that psychological distress was significantly predicted by childhood emotional neglect, while peer support was not a significant direct predictor. The regression model explained 12.5% of variance in psychological distress. Moderation analysis showed significant interaction effects of friends’ support (P= .017) and family support (P= .032), indicating that these sources of support moderated the relationship between childhood emotional neglect and psychological distress. There were significant socio-economic differences for childhood emotional and peer support, but not for psychological distress. The findings highlight the importance of considering childhood emotional experiences and interpersonal resources when understanding psychological distress among young adults.

This study examines adult romantic attachment among university students, focusing on attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional design was used, involving 50 students aged 18 to 28 years. Data were collected through an online questionnaire using the 12-item Experiences in Close Relationships?Short Form (ECR-S). The results showed moderate attachment anxiety (M = 3.78, SD = 1.03) and low-to-moderate attachment avoidance (M = 3.16, SD = 0.90). A weak positive correlation was observed between the two dimensions (r = .16, p = .264), but the relationship was not statistically significant. Exploratory analysis identified a statistically significant difference in attachment avoidance across years of study, while the observed gender difference in attachment anxiety was not statistically significant. These demographic findings require cautious interpretation because of the small subgroup sizes. Overall, participants reported greater concern about rejection than discomfort with emotional closeness. The findings support examining attachment anxiety and avoidance as distinct dimensions of romantic attachment. However, the small convenience sample, reliance on self-reported responses, and cross-sectional design limit the generalisability of the results. Further research involving larger and more diverse student populations is recommended to examine attachment patterns and their relationship with demographic and interpersonal factors.

This study explored attachment-related responses and self-reported relationship experiences among adults. A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was conducted using an online questionnaire; the supplied response file contained 57 records. The questionnaire included demographic questions, 12 attachment-related statements, six relationship-experience statements, and an optional open-ended question about healthy relationships. Descriptive statistics were calculated. For exploratory analysis, four items concerning fear of rejection and reassurance were averaged into an anxiety-related index, and four items concerning emotional disclosure, closeness, and independence were averaged into an avoidance-related index. These researcher-created indices are not validated psychological scales. Spearman rank correlations were used to examine associations with relationship-experience ratings. The six-item relationship-experience composite had a mean of 3.65 on a 1-5 scale. The anxiety-related index was positively associated with the composite (ρ = .315, p = .017), as was the avoidance-related index (ρ = .430, p = .001), contrary to the initially anticipated negative direction. Since the items were not validated, no reverse-scoring was applied, and the sample was a convenience sample with uneven demographic representation, these findings must be interpreted cautiously. They do not establish causation or justify classifying individuals by attachment style.