Cognitive Alexithymia Mediates the Association Between Avoidant Attachment and Interpersonal Problems in Patients With Somatoform Disorder

Purpose. Difficulties with sensory processing are known to have negative effects on individuals’ attachment styles and the interpersonal domain. We investigated the relationships among sensory processing styles, attachment styles, and interpersonal problems to better understand the role of attachment styles on the relationship between sensory processing styles and interpersonal problems. Participants. One-hundred and eighty-four university students (aged 18-28 years) completed a set of self-reported measures. Methods. Sensory processing styles, attachment styles, and interpersonal problems were assessed with the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile, Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised, and Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Short Circumplex Form, respectively. Results. Low registration (r=0.587, p<0.001) and sensory avoidance (r=0.501, p<0.001) were positively correlated with interpersonal problems. Regression analyses indicated that low registration (β=0.301, p<0.001) and anxious attachment (β=0.640, p<0.001) were predictors of interpersonal problems (R2=0.672, p<0.001), and sensation avoidance (β=0.386, p<0.001) and avoidant attachment (β=0.233, p<0.001) were predictors of interpersonal problems (R2=0.286, p<0.001). Participants with higher levels of low registration reported higher levels of interpersonal problems, and this relationship was partially mediated by anxious attachment. Participants with higher levels of sensory avoidance reported higher levels of interpersonal problems, and this relationship was partially mediated by avoidant attachment. Conclusions. This study clarifies the relationships between sensory processing styles and interpersonal problems and the mediating effects of attachment styles. The results were discussed in light of the related literature.

Download Full-text

Challenges in the Diagnostic Conceptualization of CRPS-1 (Formerly Conceptualized as RSD)

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2006.marapr01 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 1-3, 9-12

Author(s):

Robert J. Barth ◽

Tom W. Bohr

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽

Somatoform Disorders ◽

International Association ◽

Pain Syndrome ◽

Somatoform Disorder ◽

Syndrome Type ◽

Previous Issue

Abstract From the previous issue, this article continues a discussion of the potentially confusing aspects of the diagnostic formulation for complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), the relevance of these issues for a proposed future protocol, and recommendations for clinical practice. IASP is working to resolve the contradictions in its approach to CRPS-1 diagnosis, but it continues to include the following criterion: “[c]ontinuing pain, which is disproportionate to any inciting event.” This language only perpetuates existing issues with current definitions, specifically the overlap between the IASP criteria for CRPS-1 and somatoform disorders, overlap with the guidelines for malingering, and self-contradiction with respect to the suggestion of injury-relatedness. The authors propose to overcome the last of these by revising the criterion: “[c]omplaints of pain in the absence of any identifiable injury that could credibly account for the complaints.” Similarly, the overlap with somatoform disorders could be reworded: “The possibility of a somatoform disorder has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a somatoform scenario.” The overlap with malingering could be addressed in this manner: “The possibility of malingering has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a malingering scenario.” The article concludes with six recommendations, and a sidebar discusses rating impairment for CRPS-1 (with explicit instructions not to use the pain chapter for this purpose).

Download Full-text

Types of Stressors on Nonprofessional Against-Suicide and Pro-Suicide Message Boards

Crisis ◽

10.1027/0227-5910/a000562 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (4) ◽

pp. 257-264 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Thomas Niederkrotenthaler ◽

Benedikt Till

Keyword(s):

Content Analysis ◽

Interpersonal Problems ◽

Suicide Method ◽

Presenting Problems ◽

Message Boards ◽

Safe Method ◽

Different Types ◽

Psychiatric Problems

Abstract. Background: Little is known about presenting problems of primary posters (i.e., posters opening the thread) and their responders in nonprofessional against-suicide and pro-suicide message boards. Aims: We aimed to compare problems described in suicide message boards between different types of users (primary posters and respondents) and between against-suicide, neutral, and pro-suicide message boards. Method: In all, 1,182 archival threads with 20,499 individual postings from seven nonprofessional suicide message boards supporting an against-suicide, neutral, or pro-suicide attitude were randomly selected. Problems mentioned by primary posters and their respondents were coded with content analysis. Differences between pro-suicide, neutral, and against suicide boards, as well as correlations between primary posters and respondents, were calculated. Results: Interpersonal problems were most frequently mentioned by primary posters in against-suicide threads (40.9%) and less frequently in pro-suicide threads (11.8%; p < .001). In pro-suicide boards, the most frequent stressors were suicide method-related (e.g., how to identify a safe method: 26.2% vs. 2.5% in against-suicide boards, p < .001). Primary posters resembled respondents in terms of presenting problems in pro-suicide boards, but not in against-suicide boards. Limitations: Only self-reported problems were assessed. Conclusion: The results confirm a stronger focus on death than on life among users in pro-suicide message boards, and posters with similar problems meet in pro-suicide boards. The posters appear to clearly emphasize social strains over psychiatric problems compared with some professional settings.

Download Full-text

Attachment Styles, Physical Proximity, and Relational Satisfaction

Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors ◽

10.1027/2192-0923/a000062 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 106-112

Author(s):

Anita Shrivastava ◽

Andrea Burianova

Keyword(s):

Attachment Styles ◽

Romantic Relationship ◽

Distinct Type ◽

Relational Satisfaction ◽

Long Distance ◽

Avoidant Attachment ◽

Geographic Separation ◽

Relationship Of ◽

Attachment Dimensions

This study aimed to explore the relationships between attachment styles, proximity, and relational satisfaction. This was achieved by assessing a distinct type of long distance romantic relationship of flying crews, compared with proximal (non-flying crew) romantic relationships. The responses of 139 expatriate professionals revealed significant associations between proximity and anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions. The role of the avoidant dimension in comparison with that of the anxious dimension was found to be a significant predictor of relational satisfaction. This study contributes significantly toward addressing the role of proximity and attachment in relational satisfaction in a new context of geographic separation.

Download Full-text

Organizational Attachment

Journal of Personnel Psychology ◽

10.1027/1866-5888/a000252 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 113-124

Author(s):

Justin R. Feeney ◽

Ian R. Gellatly ◽

Richard D. Goffin ◽

Michelle Inness

Keyword(s):

Organizational Citizenship ◽

Organizational Citizenship Behavior ◽

Work Behavior ◽

Citizenship Behavior ◽

Workplace Relationships ◽

Factor Solution ◽

Anxious Attachment ◽

Organizational Attachment ◽

Study Materials ◽

Avoidant Attachment

Abstract. There is a trend to view workplace relationships through the lens of attachment theory. We developed and validated a 7-item Organizational Attachment Scale (OAS). In Study 1, we recruited 957 participants, who filled out study materials at three separate times. The OAS preserved the two-factor solution in traditional attachment measures – anxious attachment and avoidant attachment – and was invariant across time. In Study 2, we recruited 400 participants who completed the OAS in addition to several other surveys. The OAS was conceptually unique from Richards and Schat’s (2011) Co-Worker Attachment Scale (CWAS). The OAS incrementally predicted organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational identity beyond the CWAS. Additionally, the OAS incrementally predicted organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior beyond the CWAS.

Download Full-text