Upload 10 files

knowledge/bartholomew_attachments_definitions - no int no items.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+There are four attachment styles: Secured, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissive-Avoidant, and Fearful-Avoidant. in the article Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model, the definitions of the attachment styles as follows: 
+
+Secured attachment is characterized by the combination of a positive self model and a positive model of others. Secured individuals have an internalized sense of self-worth and are comfortable with intimacy in close relationships. Preoccupied attachment is characterized by a negative self model and a positive model of others. Preoccupied individuals anxiously seek to gain acceptance and validation from others, seeming to persist in the belief that they could attain safety, or security, if they could only get others to respond properly toward them. Fearful attachment is characterized by negative self and other models. Fearful individuals, like the preoccupied, are highly dependent on others acceptance and affirmation; however, because of their negative expectations, they avoid intimacy to avert the pain of loss or rejection. Dismissing attachment is characterized by a positive self model and a negative model of others. Dismissing individuals also avoid closeness because of negative expectations; however, they maintain a sense of self-worth by defensively denying the value of close relationships. secured subjects view themselves as relatively undistressed and others as supportive, that dismissive (avoidant) subjects view the self as undistressed and others as unsupportive, and that preoccupied subjects (corresponding to anxious-resistant children) view the self as distressed and others as supportive. interview method identified avoidant adults as people who denied experiencing subjective distress and downplayed the importance of attachment needs, the self-report method identified people who reported feeling subjective distress and discomfort when they become close to others. In the article, there are four cells. Cell I indicates a sense of worthiness (lovability) plus an expectation that other people are generally accepting and responsive. Because this cell corresponds conceptually to categories that investigators call securely attached, we labeled it secured. Cell II indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with a positive evaluation of others. This combination of characteristics would lead the person to strive for self-acceptance by gaining the acceptance of valued others. This pattern corresponds conceptually to Hazan and Shavers ambivalent group and to Mains enmeshed or preoccupied with attachment pattern and is referred to as preoccupied. Cell III indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with an expectation that others will be negatively disposed (untrustworthy and rejecting). By avoiding close involvement with others, this style enables people to protect themselves against anticipated rejection by others. We therefore labeled it fearful-avoidant. Finally, Cell IV indicates a sense of love-worthiness combined with a negative disposition toward other people. Such people protect themselves against disappointment by avoiding close relationships and maintaining a sense of independence and invulnerability. This style corresponds conceptually to the detached or dismissing of attachment attitude described by Main et al. (1985), so we labeled it dismissive avoidant. The dismissing and fearful styles are alike in that both reflect the avoidance of intimacy; they differ, however, in the persons need for others acceptance to maintain a positive self-regard. Similarly, the preoccupied and fearful groups are alike in that both exhibit strong dependency on others to maintain a positive self-regard, but they differ in their readiness to become involved in close relationships. Whereas the preoccupied cell implies a reaching out to others in an attempt to fulfill dependency needs, the fearful cell implies an avoidance of closeness to minimize eventual disappointment. self-concept measures were expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of the self (secured and dismissing) from those with a negative model of the self (preoccupied and fearful), whereas a sociability measure was expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of others (secured and preoccupied) from those with a negative model of others (fearful and dismissing). the groups were expected to differ from each other in their interpersonal problems. The groups with a negative image of self (preoccupied and fearful) were expected to exhibit problems with passivity and unassertiveness, whereas those with a negative image of others (fearful and dismissing) were expected to describe problems with socializing and intimacy. The fearful prototype is characterized by an avoidance of close relationships because of a fear of rejection, a sense of personal insecurity, and a distrust of others. the fearful group was rated significantly lower than the secured and preoccupied on self-disclosure, intimacy, level of romantic involvement, reliance on others, and use of others as a secure base when upset. They were also rated as uniquely low in self-confidence and as low on both balance-of-control scales. Continuous ratings of the fearful prototype showed negative correlations with self-confidence. The secured and fearful ratings were negatively correlated, and the preoccupied and dismissing ratings were negatively correlated. Finally, the fearful group reported relatively more problems reflecting a lack of assertiveness and social inhibition (introversion). problems. Fearful subjects were most likely to report interpersonal problems in the overly passive region of the interpersonal space (the lower quadrants), whereas dismissing subjects were more likely to report problems related to a lack of warmth in social interactions.  the preoccupied group. Whereas their negative self-image and positive other-image were expected to reflect problems in being overly warm and passive (the lower right quadrant), their problems reflected a greater degree of warmth-dominance. preoccupied people are highly dependent on others to maintain positive self-regard, they attempt to achieve this aim though a controlling (overly dominating) interpersonal style. The preoccupied and fearful groups expressed higher mean levels of interpersonal distress than the other two groups. the expressive scale and negative with the introverted scale). The dismissing group showed its highest means on subscales reflecting excessive coldness, with the correlational analyses showing positive correlations with the cold and competitive subscales and negative correlations with the exploitable, nurturant, and expressive scales. The preoccupied group showed elevated means on the subscales in the warm-dominant quadrant, and the continuous preoccupied rating was most strongly associated with the overly expressive subscale. The preoccupied taxing was also positively correlated with the nurturant and autocratic scales and negatively correlated with the cold, introverted, and subassertive scales. Finally, the fearful group showed elevated means on those subscales located in the passive octants; the introverted subscale showed the highest mean. Correlational analyses also indicated that the fearful style was positively associated with problems of introversion, subassertiveness, and the tendency to be exploited and negatively correlated with problems related to being overly nurturant, expressive, autocratic, and competitive. the two groups with a negative model of the self (the preoccupied and fearful) showed similar responses to measures of personal insecurity, but they differed on measures indicating readiness to become intimate with and rely on other people. The two groups also showed diametrically opposite patterns of interpersonal problems: Whereas the problems of the preoccupied subjects were centered in the warm-dominant quadrant, those of the fearful subjects were centered in the cold-passive quadrant. Similarly, the two groups defined as avoidant of close relationships (the fearful and dismissing) both showed difficulties in becoming close to and relying on others, but they differed significantly on measures reflecting an internalized sense of self-worth. Only the fearful style was consistently associated with social insecurity and lack of assertiveness. two of the four attachment styles, the preoccupied and dismissing styles, were defined in terms of differing valences of self- and other-models. The present research has thus identified interpersonal patterns with discrepant valences between self- and other acceptance. In the preoccupied style, people blame themselves for perceived rejections by others and are thereby able to maintain a positive view of others. In the dismissing style, people downplay the importance of others whom they have experienced as rejecting and are thereby able to maintain high self-esteem. 
+
+
+
+

knowledge/bartholomew_attachments_definitions - no int.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+There are four attachment styles: Secured, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissive-Avoidant, and Fearful-Avoidant. in the article Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model, the definitions of the attachment styles as follows: 
+
+Secured attachment is characterized by the combination of a positive self model and a positive model of others. Secured individuals have an internalized sense of self-worth and are comfortable with intimacy in close relationships. Preoccupied attachment is characterized by a negative self model and a positive model of others. Preoccupied individuals anxiously seek to gain acceptance and validation from others, seeming to persist in the belief that they could attain safety, or security, if they could only get others to respond properly toward them. Fearful attachment is characterized by negative self and other models. Fearful individuals, like the preoccupied, are highly dependent on others acceptance and affirmation; however, because of their negative expectations, they avoid intimacy to avert the pain of loss or rejection. Dismissing attachment is characterized by a positive self model and a negative model of others. Dismissing individuals also avoid closeness because of negative expectations; however, they maintain a sense of self-worth by defensively denying the value of close relationships. secured subjects view themselves as relatively undistressed and others as supportive, that dismissive (avoidant) subjects view the self as undistressed and others as unsupportive, and that preoccupied subjects (corresponding to anxious-resistant children) view the self as distressed and others as supportive. interview method identified avoidant adults as people who denied experiencing subjective distress and downplayed the importance of attachment needs, the self-report method identified people who reported feeling subjective distress and discomfort when they become close to others. In the article, there are four cells. Cell I indicates a sense of worthiness (lovability) plus an expectation that other people are generally accepting and responsive. Because this cell corresponds conceptually to categories that investigators call securely attached, we labeled it secured. Cell II indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with a positive evaluation of others. This combination of characteristics would lead the person to strive for self-acceptance by gaining the acceptance of valued others. This pattern corresponds conceptually to Hazan and Shavers ambivalent group and to Mains enmeshed or preoccupied with attachment pattern and is referred to as preoccupied. Cell III indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with an expectation that others will be negatively disposed (untrustworthy and rejecting). By avoiding close involvement with others, this style enables people to protect themselves against anticipated rejection by others. We therefore labeled it fearful-avoidant. Finally, Cell IV indicates a sense of love-worthiness combined with a negative disposition toward other people. Such people protect themselves against disappointment by avoiding close relationships and maintaining a sense of independence and invulnerability. This style corresponds conceptually to the detached or dismissing of attachment attitude described by Main et al. (1985), so we labeled it dismissive avoidant. The dismissing and fearful styles are alike in that both reflect the avoidance of intimacy; they differ, however, in the persons need for others acceptance to maintain a positive self-regard. Similarly, the preoccupied and fearful groups are alike in that both exhibit strong dependency on others to maintain a positive self-regard, but they differ in their readiness to become involved in close relationships. Whereas the preoccupied cell implies a reaching out to others in an attempt to fulfill dependency needs, the fearful cell implies an avoidance of closeness to minimize eventual disappointment. self-concept measures were expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of the self (secured and dismissing) from those with a negative model of the self (preoccupied and fearful), whereas a sociability measure was expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of others (secured and preoccupied) from those with a negative model of others (fearful and dismissing). the groups were expected to differ from each other in their interpersonal problems. The groups with a negative image of self (preoccupied and fearful) were expected to exhibit problems with passivity and unassertiveness, whereas those with a negative image of others (fearful and dismissing) were expected to describe problems with socializing and intimacy. The fearful prototype is characterized by an avoidance of close relationships because of a fear of rejection, a sense of personal insecurity, and a distrust of others. the fearful group was rated significantly lower than the secured and preoccupied on self-disclosure, intimacy, level of romantic involvement, reliance on others, and use of others as a secure base when upset. They were also rated as uniquely low in self-confidence and as low on both balance-of-control scales. Continuous ratings of the fearful prototype showed negative correlations with self-confidence. The secured and fearful ratings were negatively correlated, and the preoccupied and dismissing ratings were negatively correlated. Finally, the fearful group reported relatively more problems reflecting a lack of assertiveness and social inhibition (introversion). problems. Fearful subjects were most likely to report interpersonal problems in the overly passive region of the interpersonal space (the lower quadrants), whereas dismissing subjects were more likely to report problems related to a lack of warmth in social interactions.  the preoccupied group. Whereas their negative self-image and positive other-image were expected to reflect problems in being overly warm and passive (the lower right quadrant), their problems reflected a greater degree of warmth-dominance. preoccupied people are highly dependent on others to maintain positive self-regard, they attempt to achieve this aim though a controlling (overly dominating) interpersonal style. The preoccupied and fearful groups expressed higher mean levels of interpersonal distress than the other two groups. the expressive scale and negative with the introverted scale). The dismissing group showed its highest means on subscales reflecting excessive coldness, with the correlational analyses showing positive correlations with the cold and competitive subscales and negative correlations with the exploitable, nurturant, and expressive scales. The preoccupied group showed elevated means on the subscales in the warm-dominant quadrant, and the continuous preoccupied rating was most strongly associated with the overly expressive subscale. The preoccupied taxing was also positively correlated with the nurturant and autocratic scales and negatively correlated with the cold, introverted, and subassertive scales. Finally, the fearful group showed elevated means on those subscales located in the passive octants; the introverted subscale showed the highest mean. Correlational analyses also indicated that the fearful style was positively associated with problems of introversion, subassertiveness, and the tendency to be exploited and negatively correlated with problems related to being overly nurturant, expressive, autocratic, and competitive. the two groups with a negative model of the self (the preoccupied and fearful) showed similar responses to measures of personal insecurity, but they differed on measures indicating readiness to become intimate with and rely on other people. The two groups also showed diametrically opposite patterns of interpersonal problems: Whereas the problems of the preoccupied subjects were centered in the warm-dominant quadrant, those of the fearful subjects were centered in the cold-passive quadrant. Similarly, the two groups defined as avoidant of close relationships (the fearful and dismissing) both showed difficulties in becoming close to and relying on others, but they differed significantly on measures reflecting an internalized sense of self-worth. Only the fearful style was consistently associated with social insecurity and lack of assertiveness. two of the four attachment styles, the preoccupied and dismissing styles, were defined in terms of differing valences of self- and other-models. The present research has thus identified interpersonal patterns with discrepant valences between self- and other acceptance. In the preoccupied style, people blame themselves for perceived rejections by others and are thereby able to maintain a positive view of others. In the dismissing style, people downplay the importance of others whom they have experienced as rejecting and are thereby able to maintain high self-esteem. 
+
+In addition, these are the items from questionnaires used to meausre or determine attachment styles. each item is congruent to one of the attachment styles:
+
+Secured Attachment Style: 
+1. It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. 
+2. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me.
+3. I dont worry about being alone or having others not accept me. 
+4. I find it relatively easy to get close to others.
+5. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with others. 
+6. I am comfortable depending on others. 
+7. I am confident that others will be there for me when I need them. 
+8. I am confident that others find me to be a valuable person. 
+9. I am comfortable developing close relationships with others. 
+10. I am confident that most people are happy to have me as a friend. 
+11. I find it easy to be emotionally close to others. 
+12. I am comfortable with other people depending on me. 
+13. I am comfortable having others share their feelings with me. 
+14. I feel at ease in emotional relationships. 
+15. I trust other people and I like it when other people can rely on me. 
+16. I find it easy to get engaged in close relationships with other people. 
+17. I feel at ease in intimate relationships. 
+18. I think it is important that people can rely on each other. 
+19. I trust that others will be there for me when I need them. 
+20. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others.
+21. I dont worry excessively about others not accepting me. 
+22. I dont worry excessively about being alone. 
+23. I am comfortable having others depend on me. 
+24. I am comfortable depending on others. 
+25. I do not often worry about being abandoned. 
+26. I know that others will be there when I need them. 
+27. I am comfortable with my partner depending on me. 
+28. I am confident that most people are happy to have me as a friend.
+
+Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment Style: 
+1. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
+2. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others dont value me as much as I value them.
+3. I often worry that romantic partners dont really love me.
+4. I worry about having others not accept me.
+5. I worry that others dont value me as much as I value them.
+6. I worry that I wont measure up to other people.
+7. I often worry about what others think of me.
+8. I worry a lot about my relationships.
+9. I want to merge completely with another person.
+10. I sometimes feel that I force others to show more feeling and commitment than they would like.
+11. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
+12. I often worry that my partner doesnt really care for me.
+13. I worry that others will not care about me as much as I care about them.
+14. I often wonder whether people like me.
+15. I have the impression that usually I like others better than they like me.
+16. It is important to me to know if others like me.
+17. I am often worried that my partner does not really love me.
+18. My desire to merge completely sometimes scares people away.
+19. I worry that romantic partners wont care about me as much as I care about them.
+
+Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment Style: 
+1. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.
+2. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.
+3. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others.
+4. I prefer not to show others how I feel deep down.
+5. I find it difficult to depend on other people.
+6. I dont feel the need to have close relationships.
+7. I dont feel the need to have close emotional relationships.
+8. I prefer that others are independent of me and I am independent of them.
+9. I dont worry about being alone: I dont need other people that strongly.
+10. I prefer not to have others depend on me.
+11. I prefer not to depend on others.
+12. I prefer not to have other people depend on me.
+13. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.
+
+Fearful-Avoidant Attachment Style: 
+1. I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. 
+2. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. 
+3. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others. 
+4. I would like to be open to others but I feel that I cant trust other people. 
+5. I would like to have close relationships with other people but I find it difficult to fully trust them. 
+6. I am afraid that I will be deceived when I get too close with others. 
+7. I am wary to get engaged in close relationships because I am afraid to get hurt. 
+8. I am nervous when anyone gets too close to me. 
+9. I worry about being abandoned by those I am close to.
+
+
+

knowledge/bartholomew_attachments_definitions - no items.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+There are four attachment styles: Secured, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissive-Avoidant, and Fearful-Avoidant. in the article Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model, the definitions of the attachment styles as follows: 
+
+Secured attachment is characterized by the combination of a positive self model and a positive model of others. Secured individuals have an internalized sense of self-worth and are comfortable with intimacy in close relationships. Preoccupied attachment is characterized by a negative self model and a positive model of others. Preoccupied individuals anxiously seek to gain acceptance and validation from others, seeming to persist in the belief that they could attain safety, or security, if they could only get others to respond properly toward them. Fearful attachment is characterized by negative self and other models. Fearful individuals, like the preoccupied, are highly dependent on others acceptance and affirmation; however, because of their negative expectations, they avoid intimacy to avert the pain of loss or rejection. Dismissing attachment is characterized by a positive self model and a negative model of others. Dismissing individuals also avoid closeness because of negative expectations; however, they maintain a sense of self-worth by defensively denying the value of close relationships. secured subjects view themselves as relatively undistressed and others as supportive, that dismissive (avoidant) subjects view the self as undistressed and others as unsupportive, and that preoccupied subjects (corresponding to anxious-resistant children) view the self as distressed and others as supportive. interview method identified avoidant adults as people who denied experiencing subjective distress and downplayed the importance of attachment needs, the self-report method identified people who reported feeling subjective distress and discomfort when they become close to others. In the article, there are four cells. Cell I indicates a sense of worthiness (lovability) plus an expectation that other people are generally accepting and responsive. Because this cell corresponds conceptually to categories that investigators call securely attached, we labeled it secured. Cell II indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with a positive evaluation of others. This combination of characteristics would lead the person to strive for self-acceptance by gaining the acceptance of valued others. This pattern corresponds conceptually to Hazan and Shavers ambivalent group and to Mains enmeshed or preoccupied with attachment pattern and is referred to as preoccupied. Cell III indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with an expectation that others will be negatively disposed (untrustworthy and rejecting). By avoiding close involvement with others, this style enables people to protect themselves against anticipated rejection by others. We therefore labeled it fearful-avoidant. Finally, Cell IV indicates a sense of love-worthiness combined with a negative disposition toward other people. Such people protect themselves against disappointment by avoiding close relationships and maintaining a sense of independence and invulnerability. This style corresponds conceptually to the detached or dismissing of attachment attitude described by Main et al. (1985), so we labeled it dismissive avoidant. The dismissing and fearful styles are alike in that both reflect the avoidance of intimacy; they differ, however, in the persons need for others acceptance to maintain a positive self-regard. Similarly, the preoccupied and fearful groups are alike in that both exhibit strong dependency on others to maintain a positive self-regard, but they differ in their readiness to become involved in close relationships. Whereas the preoccupied cell implies a reaching out to others in an attempt to fulfill dependency needs, the fearful cell implies an avoidance of closeness to minimize eventual disappointment. self-concept measures were expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of the self (secured and dismissing) from those with a negative model of the self (preoccupied and fearful), whereas a sociability measure was expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of others (secured and preoccupied) from those with a negative model of others (fearful and dismissing). the groups were expected to differ from each other in their interpersonal problems. The groups with a negative image of self (preoccupied and fearful) were expected to exhibit problems with passivity and unassertiveness, whereas those with a negative image of others (fearful and dismissing) were expected to describe problems with socializing and intimacy. The fearful prototype is characterized by an avoidance of close relationships because of a fear of rejection, a sense of personal insecurity, and a distrust of others. the fearful group was rated significantly lower than the secured and preoccupied on self-disclosure, intimacy, level of romantic involvement, reliance on others, and use of others as a secure base when upset. They were also rated as uniquely low in self-confidence and as low on both balance-of-control scales. Continuous ratings of the fearful prototype showed negative correlations with self-confidence. The secured and fearful ratings were negatively correlated, and the preoccupied and dismissing ratings were negatively correlated. Finally, the fearful group reported relatively more problems reflecting a lack of assertiveness and social inhibition (introversion). problems. Fearful subjects were most likely to report interpersonal problems in the overly passive region of the interpersonal space (the lower quadrants), whereas dismissing subjects were more likely to report problems related to a lack of warmth in social interactions.  the preoccupied group. Whereas their negative self-image and positive other-image were expected to reflect problems in being overly warm and passive (the lower right quadrant), their problems reflected a greater degree of warmth-dominance. preoccupied people are highly dependent on others to maintain positive self-regard, they attempt to achieve this aim though a controlling (overly dominating) interpersonal style. The preoccupied and fearful groups expressed higher mean levels of interpersonal distress than the other two groups. the expressive scale and negative with the introverted scale). The dismissing group showed its highest means on subscales reflecting excessive coldness, with the correlational analyses showing positive correlations with the cold and competitive subscales and negative correlations with the exploitable, nurturant, and expressive scales. The preoccupied group showed elevated means on the subscales in the warm-dominant quadrant, and the continuous preoccupied rating was most strongly associated with the overly expressive subscale. The preoccupied taxing was also positively correlated with the nurturant and autocratic scales and negatively correlated with the cold, introverted, and subassertive scales. Finally, the fearful group showed elevated means on those subscales located in the passive octants; the introverted subscale showed the highest mean. Correlational analyses also indicated that the fearful style was positively associated with problems of introversion, subassertiveness, and the tendency to be exploited and negatively correlated with problems related to being overly nurturant, expressive, autocratic, and competitive. the two groups with a negative model of the self (the preoccupied and fearful) showed similar responses to measures of personal insecurity, but they differed on measures indicating readiness to become intimate with and rely on other people. The two groups also showed diametrically opposite patterns of interpersonal problems: Whereas the problems of the preoccupied subjects were centered in the warm-dominant quadrant, those of the fearful subjects were centered in the cold-passive quadrant. Similarly, the two groups defined as avoidant of close relationships (the fearful and dismissing) both showed difficulties in becoming close to and relying on others, but they differed significantly on measures reflecting an internalized sense of self-worth. Only the fearful style was consistently associated with social insecurity and lack of assertiveness. two of the four attachment styles, the preoccupied and dismissing styles, were defined in terms of differing valences of self- and other-models. The present research has thus identified interpersonal patterns with discrepant valences between self- and other acceptance. In the preoccupied style, people blame themselves for perceived rejections by others and are thereby able to maintain a positive view of others. In the dismissing style, people downplay the importance of others whom they have experienced as rejecting and are thereby able to maintain high self-esteem. 
+
+In the article An Attachment Theory Perspective on Closeness and Intimacy by Nancy L. Collins and Brooke C. Feeney, these are the definitions of the attachment styles in relation to closeness and intimacy:
+
+Secured: 
+Secured adults are comfortable with intimacy and closeness, view themselves as being valued and worthy of care and affection
+from others, and they perceive that others are generally responsive and dependable. Secure individuals perceive attachment figures to be generally well-intentioned, trustworthy, good-hearted, and accessible. Thus, these individuals are able to depend on others and they are not worried about being abandoned or unloved. They tend to be involved in relationships characterized by frequent positive emotion and high levels of interdependence, commitment, trust, and satisfaction. They value intimate relationships, they are able to maintain close relationships without losing personal autonomy, and they are coherent and thoughtful in discussing relationship issues. Moreover, secure individuals report positive, warm, and responsive relationship histories, have high self-esteem and perceptions of personal competency, are generally positive and self-assured in their interactions with others, and report an absence of serious interpersonal problems. They appear to maintain a healthy interdependence such that they effectively balance both intimacy and independence needs. Secured individuals exhibit their comfortable approach to relationship intimacy in a number of ways. They are willing to seek both emotional and instrumental forms of support from others in stressful situations. they exhibit a willingness to disclose to others, and they both like and are responsive to interaction partners who disclose to them. When in the caregiving role, they exhibit responsiveness and sensitivity to their partners needs, they freely display proximity-seeking behaviors, they take a cooperative (noncontrolling) approach when assisting their partner, and there is an absence of compulsive over-caregiving and negativity. They are also less likely than insecure individuals to interpret a lack of support from their partner in pessimistic ways (e.g., by attributing negative intent to their partner) and to let an intervening negative event bias their perceptions of earlier relationship events. In addition, when their partner behaves in ways that are kind and caring, secure individuals are more likely to infer that their partner was motivated by altruistic rather than selfish concerns.
+
+Anxious-Preoccupied:
+Preoccupied (or anxious-ambivalent) individuals are comfortable with intimacy and closeness, but they view themselves as being somewhat unworthy of care and affection from others. They possess mental models of themselves as being misunderstood, underappreciated, and lacking in confidence; they tend to report inconsistent, unpredictable, and relatively unsupportive attachment histories. Anxious–ambivalent individuals place a great deal of importance on, and are therefore strongly motivated to form, intimate relationships with others. They seek others approval because they depend on other peoples acceptance for a sense of personal well-being and to maintain positive selfregard; however, they experience a great deal of anxiety in their relationships with others because they are worried about being abandoned and unloved, and because they perceive significant others as being inconsistent, unreliable, and unwilling to commit to relationships. These perceptions and concerns appear to result in an over-dependence on close relationship partners, a tendency to desire extreme levels of intimacy, and a controlling (overdominating) interpersonal style. As a result, preoccupied/anxious individuals tend to be involved in relationships characterized by frequent negative affect and low levels of trust and satisfaction. They generally experience an approach-avoidance conflict in social situations as a result of their inconsistent experiences with attachment figures in the past—a conflict which typically results in extreme approach behaviors. Preoccupied individuals comfort with and desire for intimacy is reflected in their desire to seek support from others when feeling distressed. their willingness to disclose to others, and their positive feelings toward individuals who disclose to them. Preoccupied individuals report a use of touch to express affection similar to that of secures; however, they report a desire for more touch from relationship partners, and they are the most likely (of all attachment groups) to use touch in a careseeking capacity. that the support-seeking behavior of preoccupied individuals does not differ under conditions of high and low stress, which suggests that they may be less discriminating in their need and desire for support and intimacy and reflecting their chronic desire for a high level of intimacy and responsiveness from relationship partners. Although their caregiving behavior can be responsive with regard to the provision of instrumental support (in that they provide support in response to the partners need—more when its needed and less when its not), anxious individuals have been shown to provide emotional support to their partners irrespective of the partners need for it, again highlighting their desire for intimacy and closeness. They are also more likely than secure individuals to interpret an ambiguous support message in pessimistic ways (e.g., by perceiving their partner as insensitive and by attributing harmful intent to their partner) and to let an intervening negative event bias their perceptions of an earlier interaction. In addition, when their partner behaves in ways that are kind and caring, they appreciate this behavior but have doubts about their partners benevolent motivation. This type of thinking is likely to reflect a low sense of self-worth and a concern about rejection, and it is likely to impede intimacy by engendering suspicion, conflict, and ill feelings toward ones partner. Interestingly, preoccupied individuals also have been shown to differ from individuals with other attachment styles in the way in which they organize knowledge about conflictual romantic relationships. Probably because their relationship goals involve achieving a high level of intimacy and maximal responsiveness from their partners, they tend to view their conflict interactions in a more positive light than other individuals—noticing not only the negative side of conflict, but also its more positive, intimacy-promoting aspects. 
+
+Dismissive-Avoidant:
+Dismissing avoidant individuals are low in attachment-related anxiety but high in attachment-related avoidance. They perceive attachment figures as being generally unreliable, unavailable, and uncaring; however, they view themselves as being worthy and adequate individuals, and as being invulnerable to negative feelings. They maintain a positive self-image in spite of previous rejection from attachment figures by denying attachment needs, downplaying the importance of close relationships, placing much value on independence and selfreliance, distancing themselves from others, and restricting expressions of emotionality. Therefore, dismissing avoidants tend to be compulsively self reliant, and their relationships tend to be characterized by low levels of commitment and interdependence. Although avoidant individuals report a high sense of self-worth, they lack clarity or credibility in discussing close relationships. The dialectic between intimacy and independence for both avoidant styles appears to be heavily pulled towardindependence over intimacy, with the major difference being that dismissing avoidant individuals claim not to want or need intimacy, whereas fearful avoidant individuals admit that they want it but are concerned about rejection (see below). Consistent with this argument, Mashek and Sherman  found that the when adults were asked to rate their actual level of closeness and their desired level of closeness in their current relationship, individuals who were high in attachment-related avoidance but low in attachment related anxiety (the pattern associated with dismissing avoidance) wanted much less closeness than they currently had. In contrast, those who were high in avoidance and high in anxiety (the pattern associated with fearful avoidance) reported wanting much more closeness. Issues of closeness and distance (and struggles over this issue) are also salient for avoidant individuals who are characteristically uncomfortable with intimacy. Avoidant individuals discomfort with intimacy and closeness is apparent in their use of distancing strategies (as opposed to support-seeking strategies) when coping with stressful situations, their low levels of self-disclosure, their increases in negative emotion following the disclosure of others, and, compared to secure and preoccupied individuals, their lower likelihood of using touch to express affection or seek care from relationship partners, and their greater aversion to touch. Avoidant individuals also appear to be uncomfortable with intimate sexual contact as evidenced by their tendency to separate sex and love. Characteristic of avoidant individuals is their tendency to pull away from partners as their levels of distress increase. For example, that as the anxiety level of avoidant individuals rises, they show more resistance to touch from their partners. When in the caregiving role, they are generally unresponsive, controlling, insensitive, and unlikely to provide physical comfort. It is important to note, however, that these overt distancing strategies are characteristic of avoidant individuals primarily in situations in which the attachment system is activated (when the self or relationship partner is feeling alarmed or distressed). At lower levels of anxiety (when the attachment system is not activated), avoidant individuals do not distance themselves, and they do seek and provide support and establish intimacy with others. Thus, these individuals cannot be characterized as cold, distant, or aloof in general. It is distress or anxiety that appears to impede the establishment of proximity and intimacy in dyadic interactions involving avoidant individuals. It appears that distressed adult partners (similar to distressed infants in the developmental literature) present significant relationship problems for avoidant individuals. Because the proximity needs of avoidant individuals have been frequently frustrated and rarely satisfied, these individuals may overcompensate with proximity-seeking in nonthreatening circumstances. Although it may appear (on the basis of self reports and overt behaviors) that intimacy and closeness is not important to avoidant individuals, these individuals (similar to avoidant children in the strange situation) do exhibit physiological arousalwhenseparated fromtheir relationship partners in stressful situations, they are more likely than secure individuals to respond to physical separation from relationship partners with feelings of insecurity, and they appear to be somewhat more calmed than even secure individuals by supportive partner comments, which indicates that avoidant individuals do benefit from support and do have intimacy needs. that although dismissing adults attempt to avoid attachment-related emotions and are able to block emotional responses (or prevent them from surfacing) when asked to think about separation and loss, they show substantial arousal when made to focus on such thoughts. If dismissing-avoidant individuals are truly dismissing of attachment and intimacy, we would not expect them to react physiologically to the presence versus absence of a romantic partner or to be calmed by a partners conversational behavior when feeling stressed. With regard to cognitions about relationship events and behaviors that may have important implications for the closeness and intimacy experienced within the relationship, dismissing individuals are more optimistic than fearful or preoccupied individuals (but less optimistic than secure individuals) in their explanations for their partners transgressions—perhaps reflecting their positive views of themselves and their lack of dependence on relationship partners. However, relative to secure individuals, they are much more likely to draw negative inferences about their partners caring behavior (e.g., to believe that their partner was motivated by selfish rather than altruistic concerns; Collins et al., 2003) and to view their partners ambiguous support attempts as relatively unhelpful and unsupportive (Collins & Feeney, in press). Thus, dismissing individuals appear to draw inferences that protect them from the negative consequences of their partners transgressions, but may also undermine their ability to benefit from their partners kindness and goodwill. 
+
+Fearful-Avoidant:
+fearful avoidant individuals are high in both attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. Like dismissing individuals, they perceive attachment figures as being generally unreliable, unavailable, and uncaring; however, they differ from dismissing individuals in their lower sense of selfworth. Fearful individuals view themselves as being unlovable, emotionally distant, and mistrusting. They desire social contact and intimacy, but they avoid putting themselves in situations where they feel vulnerable to rejection. Thus, the approach-avoidance conflict they experience is typically resolved in favor of avoidance of close relationships. Fearful individuals tend to experience subjective distress and disturbed social relationships characterized by a hypersensitivity to social approval.	Because fearful individuals are high in both anxiety and avoidance, they have some characteristics in common with both preoccupied and dismissing individuals regarding their approach to intimacy. Their caregiving is characterized by low levels of physical contact, sensitivity, and responsiveness (similar to dismissing avoidants), but they also engage in relatively high levels of compulsive over-caregiving. The caregiving patterns of the two avoidant types (dismissing and fearful) support Bartholomew and Horowitzs (1991) hypothesis that the two styles are similar in their avoidance of intimacy, but differ in their need for others acceptance and approval and in their desire for intimate social contact. Fearful individuals are likely to be similar to dismissing avoidants in their use of distancing strategies when coping with stressful situations and in their low levels of self-disclosure. With regard to cognitions about relationship events and behaviors that may have important implications for the closeness and intimacy experienced within the relationship, fearful individuals (similar to preoccupied individuals) tend to make relationship-threatening attributions for their partners transgressions and (similar to dismissing individuals) tend to draw negative inferences about their partners caring behavior (Collins et al., 2003). In addition, when faced with a stressful laboratory task, fearful individuals are much more likely than secure individuals to view their partners support attempts as hurtful and unsupportive, especially when those attempts are somewhat ambiguous. Thus, fearful individuals tend to perceive their relationship experiences in ways that are likely to impede the continuance or establishment of intimacy.We suspect that fearful individuals cognitions about the hazards of relationships frequently override their emotional desires for intimate contact. However, in some situations in which they perceive rejection to be less likely (e.g., in situations in which the relationship partner is in need of support or care), their behavior is likely to be guided by their emotional desire for intimate contact. The compulsive caregiving they exhibit in some of these safer situations may reflect an overcompensation for their frequent lack of intimate contact with relationship partners.
+
+
+

knowledge/bartholomew_attachments_definitions.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+There are four attachment styles: Secured, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissive-Avoidant, and Fearful-Avoidant. in the article Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model, the definitions of the attachment styles as follows: 
+Secured attachment is characterized by the combination of a positive self model and a positive model of others. Secured individuals have an internalized sense of self-worth and are comfortable with intimacy in close relationships. Preoccupied attachment is characterized by a negative self model and a positive model of others. Preoccupied individuals anxiously seek to gain acceptance and validation from others, seeming to persist in the belief that they could attain safety, or security, if they could only get others to respond properly toward them. Fearful attachment is characterized by negative self and other models. Fearful individuals, like the preoccupied, are highly dependent on others acceptance and affirmation; however, because of their negative expectations, they avoid intimacy to avert the pain of loss or rejection. Dismissing attachment is characterized by a positive self model and a negative model of others. Dismissing individuals also avoid closeness because of negative expectations; however, they maintain a sense of self-worth by defensively denying the value of close relationships. secured subjects view themselves as relatively undistressed and others as supportive, that dismissive (avoidant) subjects view the self as undistressed and others as unsupportive, and that preoccupied subjects (corresponding to anxious-resistant children) view the self as distressed and others as supportive. interview method identified avoidant adults as people who denied experiencing subjective distress and downplayed the importance of attachment needs, the self-report method identified people who reported feeling subjective distress and discomfort when they become close to others. In the article, there are four cells. Cell I indicates a sense of worthiness (lovability) plus an expectation that other people are generally accepting and responsive. Because this cell corresponds conceptually to categories that investigators call securely attached, we labeled it secured. Cell II indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with a positive evaluation of others. This combination of characteristics would lead the person to strive for self-acceptance by gaining the acceptance of valued others. This pattern corresponds conceptually to Hazan and Shavers ambivalent group and to Mains enmeshed or preoccupied with attachment pattern and is referred to as preoccupied. Cell III indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with an expectation that others will be negatively disposed (untrustworthy and rejecting). By avoiding close involvement with others, this style enables people to protect themselves against anticipated rejection by others. We therefore labeled it fearful-avoidant. Finally, Cell IV indicates a sense of love-worthiness combined with a negative disposition toward other people. Such people protect themselves against disappointment by avoiding close relationships and maintaining a sense of independence and invulnerability. This style corresponds conceptually to the detached or dismissing of attachment attitude described by Main et al. (1985), so we labeled it dismissive avoidant. The dismissing and fearful styles are alike in that both reflect the avoidance of intimacy; they differ, however, in the persons need for others acceptance to maintain a positive self-regard. Similarly, the preoccupied and fearful groups are alike in that both exhibit strong dependency on others to maintain a positive self-regard, but they differ in their readiness to become involved in close relationships. Whereas the preoccupied cell implies a reaching out to others in an attempt to fulfill dependency needs, the fearful cell implies an avoidance of closeness to minimize eventual disappointment. self-concept measures were expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of the self (secured and dismissing) from those with a negative model of the self (preoccupied and fearful), whereas a sociability measure was expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of others (secured and preoccupied) from those with a negative model of others (fearful and dismissing). the groups were expected to differ from each other in their interpersonal problems. The groups with a negative image of self (preoccupied and fearful) were expected to exhibit problems with passivity and unassertiveness, whereas those with a negative image of others (fearful and dismissing) were expected to describe problems with socializing and intimacy. The fearful prototype is characterized by an avoidance of close relationships because of a fear of rejection, a sense of personal insecurity, and a distrust of others. the fearful group was rated significantly lower than the secured and preoccupied on self-disclosure, intimacy, level of romantic involvement, reliance on others, and use of others as a secure base when upset. They were also rated as uniquely low in self-confidence and as low on both balance-of-control scales. Continuous ratings of the fearful prototype showed negative correlations with self-confidence. The secured and fearful ratings were negatively correlated, and the preoccupied and dismissing ratings were negatively correlated. Finally, the fearful group reported relatively more problems reflecting a lack of assertiveness and social inhibition (introversion). problems. Fearful subjects were most likely to report interpersonal problems in the overly passive region of the interpersonal space (the lower quadrants), whereas dismissing subjects were more likely to report problems related to a lack of warmth in social interactions.  the preoccupied group. Whereas their negative self-image and positive other-image were expected to reflect problems in being overly warm and passive (the lower right quadrant), their problems reflected a greater degree of warmth-dominance. preoccupied people are highly dependent on others to maintain positive self-regard, they attempt to achieve this aim though a controlling (overly dominating) interpersonal style. The preoccupied and fearful groups expressed higher mean levels of interpersonal distress than the other two groups. the expressive scale and negative with the introverted scale). The dismissing group showed its highest means on subscales reflecting excessive coldness, with the correlational analyses showing positive correlations with the cold and competitive subscales and negative correlations with the exploitable, nurturant, and expressive scales. The preoccupied group showed elevated means on the subscales in the warm-dominant quadrant, and the continuous preoccupied rating was most strongly associated with the overly expressive subscale. The preoccupied taxing was also positively correlated with the nurturant and autocratic scales and negatively correlated with the cold, introverted, and subassertive scales. Finally, the fearful group showed elevated means on those subscales located in the passive octants; the introverted subscale showed the highest mean. Correlational analyses also indicated that the fearful style was positively associated with problems of introversion, subassertiveness, and the tendency to be exploited and negatively correlated with problems related to being overly nurturant, expressive, autocratic, and competitive. the two groups with a negative model of the self (the preoccupied and fearful) showed similar responses to measures of personal insecurity, but they differed on measures indicating readiness to become intimate with and rely on other people. The two groups also showed diametrically opposite patterns of interpersonal problems: Whereas the problems of the preoccupied subjects were centered in the warm-dominant quadrant, those of the fearful subjects were centered in the cold-passive quadrant. Similarly, the two groups defined as avoidant of close relationships (the fearful and dismissing) both showed difficulties in becoming close to and relying on others, but they differed significantly on measures reflecting an internalized sense of self-worth. Only the fearful style was consistently associated with social insecurity and lack of assertiveness. two of the four attachment styles, the preoccupied and dismissing styles, were defined in terms of differing valences of self- and other-models. The present research has thus identified interpersonal patterns with discrepant valences between self- and other acceptance. In the preoccupied style, people blame themselves for perceived rejections by others and are thereby able to maintain a positive view of others. In the dismissing style, people downplay the importance of others whom they have experienced as rejecting and are thereby able to maintain high self-esteem. 
+
+Overall, if the view on the self is negative, and the view on others is negative - it is likely that the person is Fearful-Avoidant. if the view on the self is positive, and the view on others is positive - it is likely that the person is Secured. if the view on the self is positive, and the view on others is negative - it is likely that the person is Dismissive-Avoidant. if the view on the self is negative, and the view on others is positive - it is likely that the person is Anxious-Preoccupied. if anxiety is high, and avoidance is also high - it is likely that the person is Fearful-Avoidant. if anxiety is low, and avoidance is also low - it is likely that the person is Secured. if anxiety is low, and avoidance is high - it is likely that the person is Dismissive-Avoidant. if anxiety is high, and avoidance is low - it is likely that the person is Anxious-Preoccupied.
+
+Also, in the article An Attachment Theory Perspective on Closeness and Intimacy by Nancy L. Collins and Brooke C. Feeney, these are the definitions of the attachment styles in relation to closeness and intimacy:
+
+Secured Attachment Style: 
+Secured adults are comfortable with intimacy and closeness, view themselves as being valued and worthy of care and affection from others, and they perceive that others are generally responsive. Secure individuals perceive attachment figures to be generally well-intentioned, trustworthy, good-hearted, and accessible. Thus, these individuals are able to depend on others and they are not worried about being abandoned or unloved. They tend to be involved in relationships characterized by frequent positive emotion and high levels of interdependence, commitment, trust, and satisfaction. They value intimate relationships, they are able to maintain close relationships without losing personal autonomy, and they are coherent and thoughtful in discussing relationship issues. Moreover, secure individuals report positive, warm, and responsive relationship histories, have high self-esteem and perceptions of personal competency, are generally positive and self-assured in their interactions with others, and have no serious interpersonal problems. They appear to maintain a healthy interdependence such that they effectively balance both intimacy and independence needs. Secured individuals exhibit their comfortable approach to relationship intimacy in a number of ways. They are willing to seek both emotional and instrumental forms of support from others in stressful situations. When in the caregiving role, they exhibit responsiveness and sensitivity to their partners needs, and there is an absence of compulsive over-caregiving and negativity. They are also less likely than insecure individuals to interpret a lack of support from their partner in pessimistic ways (e.g., by attributing negative intent to their partner) and to let an intervening negative event bias their perceptions of earlier relationship events. In addition, when their partner behaves in ways that are kind and caring, secure individuals are more likely to infer that their partner was motivated by altruistic rather than selfish concerns.
+
+Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment Style:
+Preoccupied (or anxious-ambivalent) individuals are comfortable with intimacy and closeness, but they view themselves as being somewhat unworthy of care and affection from others. They possess mental models of themselves as being misunderstood, under appreciated, and lacking in confidence; they tend to report inconsistent, unpredictable, and relatively unsupportive attachment histories. Anxious–ambivalent individuals place a great deal of importance on, and are therefore strongly motivated to form, intimate relationships with others. They seek others approval because they depend on other peoples acceptance for a sense of personal well-being and to maintain positive self regard; however, they experience a great deal of anxiety in their relationships with others because they are worried about being abandoned and unloved, and because they perceive significant others as being inconsistent, unreliable, and unwilling to commit to relationships. These perceptions and concerns appear to result in an over-dependence on close relationship partners, a tendency to desire extreme levels of intimacy, and a controlling (overdominating) interpersonal style. As a result, preoccupied/anxious individuals tend to be involved in relationships characterized by frequent negative affect and low levels of trust and satisfaction. They generally experience an approach-avoidance conflict in social situations as a result of their inconsistent experiences with attachment figures in the past—a conflict which typically results in extreme approach behaviors. Preoccupied individuals comfort with and desire for intimacy is reflected in their desire to seek support from others when feeling distressed. their willingness to disclose to others, and their positive feelings toward individuals who disclose to them. Preoccupied individuals report a use of touch to express affection similar to that of secures; however, they report a desire for more touch from relationship partners, and they are the most likely (of all attachment groups) to use touch in a care seeking capacity. that the support-seeking behavior of preoccupied individuals does not differ under conditions of high and low stress, which suggests that they may be less discriminating in their need and desire for support and intimacy and reflecting their chronic desire for a high level of intimacy and responsiveness from relationship partners. Although their caregiving behavior can be responsive with regard to the provision of instrumental support (in that they provide support in response to the partners need—more when its needed and less when its not), anxious individuals have been shown to provide emotional support to their partners irrespective of the partners need for it, again highlighting their desire for intimacy and closeness. They are also more likely than secure individuals to interpret an ambiguous support message in pessimistic ways (e.g., by perceiving their partner as insensitive and by attributing harmful intent to their partner) and to let an intervening negative event bias their perceptions of an earlier interaction. In addition, when their partner behaves in ways that are kind and caring, they appreciate this behavior but have doubts about their partners benevolent motivation. This type of thinking is likely to reflect a low sense of self-worth and a concern about rejection, and it is likely to impede intimacy by engendering suspicion, conflict, and ill feelings toward ones partner. Interestingly, preoccupied individuals also have been shown to differ from individuals with other attachment styles in the way in which they organize knowledge about conflictual romantic relationships. Probably because their relationship goals involve achieving a high level of intimacy and maximal responsiveness from their partners, they tend to view their conflict interactions in a more positive light than other individuals—noticing not only the negative side of conflict, but also its more positive, intimacy-promoting aspects. 
+
+Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment Style:
+Dismissing avoidant individuals are low in attachment-related anxiety but high in attachment-related avoidance. They perceive attachment figures as being generally unreliable, unavailable, and uncaring; however, they view themselves as being worthy and adequate individuals, and as being invulnerable to negative feelings. They maintain a positive self-image in spite of previous rejection from attachment figures by denying attachment needs, downplaying the importance of close relationships, placing much value on independence and self reliance, distancing themselves from others, and restricting expressions of emotionality. Therefore, dismissing avoidants tend to be compulsively self reliant, and their relationships tend to be characterized by low levels of commitment and interdependence. Although avoidant individuals report a high sense of self-worth, they lack clarity or credibility in discussing close relationships. The dialectic between intimacy and independence for both avoidant styles appears to be heavily pulled toward independence over intimacy, with the major difference being that dismissing avoidant individuals claim not to want or need intimacy, whereas fearful avoidant individuals admit that they want it but are concerned about rejection (see below). Consistent with this argument, Mashek and Sherman  found that the when adults were asked to rate their actual level of closeness and their desired level of closeness in their current relationship, individuals who were high in attachment-related avoidance but low in attachment related anxiety (the pattern associated with dismissing avoidance) wanted much less closeness than they currently had. In contrast, those who were high in avoidance and high in anxiety (the pattern associated with fearful avoidance) reported wanting much more closeness. Issues of closeness and distance (and struggles over this issue) are also salient for avoidant individuals who are characteristically uncomfortable with intimacy. Avoidant individuals discomfort with intimacy and closeness is apparent in their use of distancing strategies (as opposed to support-seeking strategies) when coping with stressful situations, their low levels of self-disclosure, their increases in negative emotion following the disclosure of others, and, compared to secure and preoccupied individuals, their lower likelihood of using touch to express affection or seek care from relationship partners, and their greater aversion to touch. Avoidant individuals also appear to be uncomfortable with intimate sexual contact as evidenced by their tendency to separate sex and love. Characteristic of avoidant individuals is their tendency to pull away from partners as their levels of distress increase. For example, that as the anxiety level of avoidant individuals rises, they show more resistance to touch from their partners. When in the caregiving role, they are generally unresponsive, controlling, insensitive, and unlikely to provide physical comfort. It is important to note, however, that these overt distancing strategies are characteristic of avoidant individuals primarily in situations in which the attachment system is activated (when the self or relationship partner is feeling alarmed or distressed). At lower levels of anxiety (when the attachment system is not activated), avoidant individuals do not distance themselves, and they do seek and provide support and establish intimacy with others. Thus, these individuals cannot be characterized as cold, distant, or aloof in general. It is distress or anxiety that appears to impede the establishment of proximity and intimacy in dyadic interactions involving avoidant individuals. It appears that distressed adult partners (similar to distressed infants in the developmental literature) present significant relationship problems for avoidant individuals. Because the proximity needs of avoidant individuals have been frequently frustrated and rarely satisfied, these individuals may overcompensate with proximity-seeking in nonthreatening circumstances. Although it may appear (on the basis of self reports and overt behaviors) that intimacy and closeness is not important to avoidant individuals, these individuals (similar to avoidant children in the strange situation) do exhibit physiological arousal when separated from their relationship partners in stressful situations, they are more likely than secure individuals to respond to physical separation from relationship partners with feelings of insecurity, and they appear to be somewhat more calmed than even secure individuals by supportive partner comments, which indicates that avoidant individuals do benefit from support and do have intimacy needs. that although dismissing adults attempt to avoid attachment-related emotions and are able to block emotional responses (or prevent them from surfacing) when asked to think about separation and loss, they show substantial arousal when made to focus on such thoughts. If dismissing-avoidant individuals are truly dismissing of attachment and intimacy, we would not expect them to react physiologically to the presence versus absence of a romantic partner or to be calmed by a partners conversational behavior when feeling stressed. With regard to cognitions about relationship events and behaviors that may have important implications for the closeness and intimacy experienced within the relationship, dismissing individuals are more optimistic than fearful or preoccupied individuals (but less optimistic than secure individuals) in their explanations for their partners transgressions—perhaps reflecting their positive views of themselves and their lack of dependence on relationship partners. However, relative to secure individuals, they are much more likely to draw negative inferences about their partners caring behavior (e.g., to believe that their partner was motivated by selfish rather than altruistic concerns; Collins et al., 2003) and to view their partners ambiguous support attempts as relatively unhelpful and unsupportive (Collins & Feeney, in press). Thus, dismissing individuals appear to draw inferences that protect them from the negative consequences of their partners transgressions, but may also undermine their ability to benefit from their partners kindness and goodwill. 
+
+Fearful-Avoidant Attachment Style:
+fearful avoidant individuals are high in both attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. Like dismissing individuals, they perceive attachment figures as being generally unreliable, unavailable, and uncaring; however, they differ from dismissing individuals in their lower sense of self worth. Fearful individuals view themselves as being unlovable, emotionally distant, and mistrusting. They desire social contact and intimacy, but they avoid putting themselves in situations where they feel vulnerable to rejection. Thus, the approach-avoidance conflict they experience is typically resolved in favor of avoidance of close relationships. Fearful individuals tend to experience subjective distress and disturbed social relationships characterized by a hypersensitivity to social approval.	Because fearful individuals are high in both anxiety and avoidance, they have some characteristics in common with both preoccupied and dismissing individuals regarding their approach to intimacy. Their caregiving is characterized by low levels of physical contact, sensitivity, and responsiveness (similar to dismissing avoidants), but they also engage in relatively high levels of compulsive over-caregiving. The caregiving patterns of the two avoidant types (dismissing and fearful) support Bartholomew and Horowitzs (1991) hypothesis that the two styles are similar in their avoidance of intimacy, but differ in their need for others acceptance and approval and in their desire for intimate social contact. Fearful individuals are likely to be similar to dismissing avoidants in their use of distancing strategies when coping with stressful situations and in their low levels of self-disclosure. With regard to cognitions about relationship events and behaviors that may have important implications for the closeness and intimacy experienced within the relationship, fearful individuals (similar to preoccupied individuals) tend to make relationship-threatening attributions for their partners transgressions and (similar to dismissing individuals) tend to draw negative inferences about their partners caring behavior (Collins et al., 2003). In addition, when faced with a stressful laboratory task, fearful individuals are much more likely than secure individuals to view their partners support attempts as hurtful and unsupportive, especially when those attempts are somewhat ambiguous. Thus, fearful individuals tend to perceive their relationship experiences in ways that are likely to impede the continuance or establishment of intimacy.We suspect that fearful individuals cognitions about the hazards of relationships frequently override their emotional desires for intimate contact. However, in some situations in which they perceive rejection to be less likely (e.g., in situations in which the relationship partner is in need of support or care), their behavior is likely to be guided by their emotional desire for intimate contact. The compulsive caregiving they exhibit in some of these safer situations may reflect an overcompensation for their frequent lack of intimate contact with relationship partners.
+
+Adult attachment researchers typically define four prototypic attachment styles derived from two underlying dimensions: anxiety and avoidance.
+The anxiety dimension refers to one sense of self-worth and acceptance (versus rejection) by others, and this dimension appears to be closely linked to working models of the self. The avoidance dimension refers to the degree to which one approaches (versus avoids) intimacy and interdependence with others, and this dimension appears to be closely linked to working models of others. Secure adults are low in both attachment-related anxiety and avoidance, they are comfortable with intimacy, willing to rely on others for support, and confident that they are valued by others. Preoccupied adults are high in anxiety and low in avoidance, they have an exaggerated desire for closeness and dependence, coupled with a heightened concern about being rejected. Dismissing avoidant individuals are low in attachment-related anxiety but high in avoidance, they view close relationships as relatively and they value independence and self-reliance. Finally, fearful avoidant adults are high in both attachment anxiety and avoidance, although they desire close relationships and the approval of others, they avoid intimacy because they fear being rejected.
+
+In addition, these are the items from questionnaires used to measure or determine attachment styles. each item is congruent to one of the attachment styles. if someone agree or confirm one or several of the items it means he belong to the listed attachment style of that item or items. these are the items and their attachment styles (4 attachment styles and 68 items in total):
+
+Secured Attachment Style: 
+1. It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. 
+2. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me.
+3. I dont worry about being alone or having others not accept me. 
+4. I find it relatively easy to get close to others.
+5. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with others. 
+6. I am comfortable depending on others. 
+7. I am confident that others will be there for me when I need them. 
+8. I am confident that others find me to be a valuable person. 
+9. I am comfortable developing close relationships with others. 
+10. I am confident that most people are happy to have me as a friend. 
+11. I find it easy to be emotionally close to others. 
+12. I am comfortable with other people depending on me. 
+13. I am comfortable having others share their feelings with me. 
+14. I feel at ease in emotional relationships. 
+15. I trust other people and I like it when other people can rely on me. 
+16. I find it easy to get engaged in close relationships with other people. 
+17. I feel at ease in intimate relationships. 
+18. I think it is important that people can rely on each other. 
+19. I trust that others will be there for me when I need them. 
+20. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others.
+21. I dont worry excessively about others not accepting me. 
+22. I dont worry excessively about being alone. 
+23. I am comfortable having others depend on me. 
+24. I am comfortable depending on others. 
+25. I do not often worry about being abandoned. 
+26. I know that others will be there when I need them. 
+27. I am comfortable with my partner depending on me. 
+28. I am confident that most people are happy to have me as a friend.
+
+Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment Style: 
+1. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
+2. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others dont value me as much as I value them.
+3. I often worry that romantic partners dont really love me.
+4. I worry about having others not accept me.
+5. I worry that others dont value me as much as I value them.
+6. I worry that I wont measure up to other people.
+7. I often worry about what others think of me.
+8. I worry a lot about my relationships.
+9. I want to merge completely with another person.
+10. I sometimes feel that I force others to show more feeling and commitment than they would like.
+11. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
+12. I often worry that my partner doesnt really care for me.
+13. I worry that others will not care about me as much as I care about them.
+14. I often wonder whether people like me.
+15. I have the impression that usually I like others better than they like me.
+16. It is important to me to know if others like me.
+17. I am often worried that my partner does not really love me.
+18. My desire to merge completely sometimes scares people away.
+19. I worry that romantic partners wont care about me as much as I care about them.
+
+Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment Style: 
+1. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.
+2. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.
+3. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others.
+4. I prefer not to show others how I feel deep down.
+5. I find it difficult to depend on other people.
+6. I dont feel the need to have close relationships.
+7. I dont feel the need to have close emotional relationships.
+8. I prefer that others are independent of me and I am independent of them.
+9. I dont worry about being alone: I dont need other people that strongly.
+10. I prefer not to have others depend on me.
+11. I prefer not to depend on others.
+12. I prefer not to have other people depend on me.
+13. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.
+
+Fearful-Avoidant Attachment Style: 
+1. I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. 
+2. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. 
+3. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others. 
+4. I would like to be open to others but I feel that I cant trust other people. 
+5. I would like to have close relationships with other people but I find it difficult to fully trust them. 
+6. I am afraid that I will be deceived when I get too close with others. 
+7. I am wary to get engaged in close relationships because I am afraid to get hurt. 
+8. I am nervous when anyone gets too close to me. 
+9. I worry about being abandoned by those I am close to.
+
+
+

knowledge/bigfive_definitions.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+The Big Five five-factor personality traits are as follows:
+
+- Extraversion (talktive, assertive, energetic, outgoing, gregariousness, sociable, excitement-seeking, adventurous, enthusiastic, outgoing, show-off, spunky, noisy, bossy), - the opposite is Introversion (solitary, reserved, quiet, withdrawn).
+
+- Agreeableness (good-natured, cooperative, trustful, forgiving, straightforward, not demanding, altruitstic, not stubborn, modest, tender-minded, sympathetic, kind, appreciative, affectionate, soft-hearted, generous, helpful, pleasant, friendly, cooperative, gentle, unselfish, praising), the opposite is Antagonism (critical, rational, fault-finding, unfriendly, quarrelsome, hard-hearted, unkind, cruel).
+
+- Conscientiousness (orderly, responsible, efficient, organized, competence, efficient, dutiful, not careless, achievement striving, self-discipline, not lazy, delberative, not impulsive, organized, thorough, planful, reliable, conscientious, precise, practical, deliberate, painstaking), the opposite is lack of direction (extravagant, careless, disorderly, frivolous, irresponsible, slipshop, forgetful).
+
+- Neuroticism (stressed, anxious, neurotic, easily upset, sensitive, nervous, irritable, not contented, shy, impulsive, not self-confident, tense, worrying, moody, fearful, high-strung, self-pitying, temperamental, unstable, self-punishing, despondent), the opposite is emotional stability (calm, not neurotic, not easily upset, resilient, confident, stable, contented).
+
+- Openness or Openness to experience (intellectual, imaginative, independant-minded, inventive, curious, artistic, wide interests, original, insightful, sophisticated, inventive, sharp-witted, ingenious, witty), the opposite is closedness to experience (cautious, narrow interests, simple, shallow).
+
+NEO‐PI‐R measures the five personality domains in FFM. Each of these domains consists
+of six facet scales with each facet scale containing eight items, resulting in a total of 30 facet
+scales and 240 items. These items are rated on a 5‐point Likert‐type scale including Strongly
+
+­Contents and Structure of  NEO-PI-339
+Disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A), to Strongly Agree (SA). These facet scales
+and items are balanced to control for acquiescence effect.
+The five domains and 30 facet scales are summarized below with a brief description
+based on the Manual of the NEO‐PI‐R.
+
+Neuroticism:
+N: Neuroticism Tendency to experience of psychological distress
+N1: Anxiety Experience of free‐floating anxiety
+N2: Angry Hostility Experience of anger and related states
+N3: Depression Feelings of guilt, sadness, despondency, and loneliness
+N4: Self‐Consciousness Shyness or social anxiety
+N5: Impulsiveness Act on cravings and urges rather than reining them in
+N6: Vulnerability General susceptibility to stress
+
+Extraversion:
+E: Extraversion Quantity and intensity of energy directed outwards
+E1: Warmth Interest in and friendliness towards others
+E2: Gregariousness Preference for the company of others
+E3: Assertiveness Social ascendancy and forcefulness of expression
+E4: Activity Pace of living
+E5: Excitement Seeking Need for environmental stimulation
+E6: Positive Emotions Tendency to experience positive emotions
+
+Openness:
+O: Openness Active seeking and appreciation of experiences
+O1: Fantasy Receptivity to the inner world of imagination
+O2: Aesthetics Appreciation of art and beauty
+O3: Feelings Openness to inner feelings and emotions
+O4: Actions Openness to new experiences on a practical level
+O5: Ideas Intellectual curiosity
+O6: Values Readiness to reexamine own values and those of authority figures
+
+Agreeableness:
+A: Agreeableness Interactions one prefers from compassion to tough mindedness
+A1: Trust Belief in the sincerity and good intentions of others
+A2: Straightforwardness Frankness in expression
+A3: Altruism Active concern for the welfare of others
+A4: Compliance Response to interpersonal conflict
+A5: Modesty Tendency to play down own achievements and be humble
+A6: Tender‐Mindedness Attitude of sympathy for others
+
+Conscientiousness:
+C: Conscientiousness Organized, persistent, and motivated in goal directed behavior
+C1: Competence Belief in own self‐efficacy
+C2: Order Personal organization
+C3: Dutifulness Emphasis on fulfilling moral and ethical obligations
+C4: Achievement Striving Need for personal achievement and sense of direction
+C5: Self‐Discipline Capacity to get job done on time
+C6: Deliberation Tendency to think things through before acting or speaking
+

knowledge/personalities_definitions.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+According to Drew Westen and Jonathan Shedler in their article An Empirically Derived Taxonomy for Personality Diagnosis, these are the personality types or disorders:
+
+Anxious-Avoidant or Avoidant:
+Individuals who match this prototype are chronically anxious. They tend to ruminate, dwelling on problems or replaying conversations in
+their minds. They are more concerned with avoiding harm than pursuing desires, and their choices and actions are unduly influenced by
+efforts to avoid perceived dangers. They are prone to feelings of shame and embarrassment. Individuals who match this prototype tend to
+be shy and self-conscious in social situations and to feel like an outcast or outsider. They are often socially awkward and tend to avoid social
+situations because of fear of embarrassment or humiliation. They tend to be inhibited and constricted and to have difficulty acknowledging
+or expressing desires. They may adhere rigidly to daily routines, have trouble making decisions, or vacillate when faced with choices. Their
+anxiety may find expression through a variety of channels, including panic attacks, hypochondriacal concerns (e.g., excessive worry about
+normal aches and pains), or somatic symptoms in response to stress (e.g., headache, backache, abdominal pain, asthma).
+
+Dependent-Victimized or Dependent:
+Individuals who match this prototype tend to be needy and dependent, fear being alone, and fear rejection or abandonment. They tend
+to be ingratiating or submissive, often consenting to things they find objectionable in an effort to maintain support or approval. They tend
+to be passive and unassertive and to feel helpless and powerless. They tend to be indecisive, suggestible or easily influenced, and naïve or
+innocent, seeming to know less about the ways of the world than would be expected. They tend to become attached to people who are
+emotionally unavailable, and to create relationships in which they are in the role of caring for or rescuing the other person. Individuals
+who match this prototype tend to get drawn into or remain in relationships in which they are emotionally or physically abused, or needlessly
+put themselves in dangerous situations (e.g., walking alone or agreeing to meet strangers in unsafe places). They are insufficiently
+concerned with meeting their own needs and tend to feel unworthy or undeserving. Individuals who match this prototype have trouble
+acknowledging or expressing anger and instead become depressed, self-critical, or self-punitive. They tend to express anger in passive and
+indirect ways (e.g., making mistakes, procrastinating, forgetting) that may provoke or trigger anger or mistreatment from others.
+
+Schizoid-Schizotypal:
+Individuals who match this prototype lack close relationships and appear to have little need for human company or contact, often seeming
+detached or indifferent. They lack social skills and tend to be socially awkward or inappropriate. Their appearance or manner may be odd
+or peculiar (e.g., their grooming, posture, eye contact, or speech rhythms may seem strange or  off ), and their verbal statements may be
+incongruous with their accompanying emotion or non-verbal behavior. They have difficulty making sense of others’ behavior and appear
+unable to describe important others in a way that conveys a sense of who they are as people. They likewise have little insight into their own
+motives and behavior, and have difficulty giving a coherent account of their lives. Individuals who match this prototype appear to have a
+limited or constricted range of emotions and tend to think in concrete terms, showing limited ability to appreciate metaphor, analogy, or
+nuance. Consequently, they tend to elicit boredom in others. Despite their apparent emotional detachment, they often suffer emotionally:
+They find little satisfaction or enjoyment in life’s activities, tend to feel life has no meaning, and feel like outcasts or outsiders. A subset of
+individuals who match this prototype show substantial peculiarities in their thinking and perception. Their speech and thought processes
+may be circumstantial, rambling, or digressive, their reasoning processes or perceptual experiences may seem odd and idiosyncratic, and
+they may be suspicious of others, reading malevolent intent into others’ words and actions.
+
+Antisocial-Psychopathic or Antisocial:
+Individuals who match this prototype take advantage of others, tend to lie or deceive, and to be manipulative. They show a reckless
+disregard for the rights, property, or safety of others. They lack empathy for other people’s needs and feelings. Individuals who match this
+prototype experience little remorse for harm or injury they cause. They appear impervious to consequences and seem unable or unwilling
+to modify their behavior in response to threats or consequences. They generally lack psychological insight and blame their difficulties on
+other people or circumstances. They often appear to gain pleasure by being sadistic or aggressive toward others, and they may attempt to
+dominate significant others through intimidation or violence. Individuals who match this prototype tend to be impulsive, to seek thrills,
+novelty, and excitement, and to require high levels of stimulation. They tend to be unreliable and irresponsible and may fail to meet work
+obligations or honor financial commitments. They may engage in antisocial behavior, including unlawful activities, substance abuse, or
+interpersonal violence. They may repeatedly convince others of their commitment to change, leading others to think  this time is really different, 
+only to revert to their previous maladaptive behavior.
+
+Paranoid:
+Individuals who match this prototype are chronically suspicious, expecting that others will harm, deceive, conspire against, or betray them.
+They tend to blame their problems on other people or circumstances, and to attribute their difficulties to external factors. Rather than
+recognizing their own role in interpersonal conflicts, they tend to feel misunderstood, mistreated, or victimized. Individuals who match this
+prototype tend to be angry or hostile and prone to rage episodes. They tend to see their own unacceptable impulses in other people instead
+of in themselves, and are therefore prone to misattribute hostility to other people. They tend to be controlling, to be oppositional, contrary,
+or quick to disagree, and to hold grudges. They tend to elicit dislike or animosity and to lack close friendships and relationships. Individuals
+who match this prototype tend to show disturbances in their thinking, above and beyond paranoid ideas. Their perceptions and reasoning
+can be odd and idiosyncratic, and they may become irrational when strong emotions are stirred up, to the point of seeming delusional.
+
+Narcissistic:
+Individuals who match this prototype have an exaggerated sense of self-importance. They feel privileged and entitled, expect preferential
+treatment, and seek to be the center of attention. They have fantasies of unlimited success, power, beauty, or talent, and tend to treat others
+primarily as an audience to witness their importance or brilliance. They tend to believe they can only be appreciated by, or should only
+associate with, people who are high-status, superior, or  special.  They have little empathy and seem unable to understand or respond to
+others’ needs and feelings unless they coincide with their own. Individuals who match this prototype tend to be dismissive, haughty, and
+arrogant. They tend to be critical, envious, competitive with others, and prone to get into power struggles. They attempt to avoid feeling
+helpless or depressed by becoming angry instead, and tend to react to perceived slights or criticism with rage and humiliation. Their overt
+grandiosity may mask underlying vulnerability: Individuals who match this prototype are invested in seeing and portraying themselves as
+emotionally strong, untroubled, and emotionally in control, often despite clear evidence of underlying insecurity or distress. A substantial
+subset of narcissistic individuals tend to feel inadequate or inferior, to feel that life has no meaning, and to be self-critical and intolerant of
+their own human defects, holding themselves to unrealistic standards of perfection.
+
+Borderline-Dysregulated or Borderline:
+Individuals who match this prototype have emotions that can change rapidly and spiral out of control, leading to extremes of sadness,
+anxiety, and rage. They tend to catastrophize, seeing problems as disastrous or unsolvable, and are often unable to soothe or comfort
+themselves without the help of another person. They tend to become irrational when strong emotions are stirred up, showing a significant
+decline from their usual level of functioning. Individuals who match this prototype lack a stable sense of self: Their attitudes, values, goals,
+and feelings about themselves may seem unstable or ever-changing, and they are prone to painful feelings of emptiness. They similarly
+have difficulty maintaining stable, balanced views of others: When upset, they have trouble perceiving positive and negative qualities in
+the same person at the same time, seeing others in extreme, black-or-white terms. Consequently, their relationships tend to be unstable,
+chaotic, and rapidly changing. They fear rejection and abandonment, fear being alone, and tend to become attached quickly and intensely.
+They are prone to feeling misunderstood, mistreated, or victimized. They often elicit intense emotions in other people and may draw them
+into roles or  scripts  that feel alien and unfamiliar (e.g., being uncharacteristically cruel, or making  heroic  efforts to rescue them). They
+may likewise stir up conflict or animosity between other people. Individuals who match this prototype tend to act impulsively. Their work
+life or living arrangements may be chaotic and unstable. They may act on self-destructive impulses, including self-mutilating behavior,
+suicidal threats or gestures, and genuine suicidality, especially when an attachment relationship is disrupted or threatened.
+
+Obsessional or Obsessive-Compulsive:
+Individuals who match this prototype tend to see themselves as logical and rational, uninfluenced by emotion. They tend to think in abstract
+and intellectualized terms, to become absorbed in details (often to the point of missing what is important), and prefer to operate as if
+emotions were irrelevant or inconsequential. They tend to be excessively devoted to work and productivity to the detriment of leisure and
+relationships. Individuals who match this prototype tend to be inhibited and constricted, and have difficulty acknowledging or expressing
+wishes, impulses, or anger. They are invested in seeing and portraying themselves as emotionally strong, untroubled, and in control, despite
+evidence of underlying insecurity, anxiety, or distress. They tend to deny or disavow their need for nurturance or comfort, often regarding
+such needs as weakness. They tend to adhere rigidly to daily routines, becoming anxious or uncomfortable when they are altered, and
+to be overly concerned with rules, procedures, order, organization, schedules, and so on. They may be preoccupied with concerns about
+dirt, cleanliness, or contamination. Rationality and regimentation generally mask underlying feelings of anxiety or anger. Individuals who
+match this prototype tend to be conflicted about anger, aggression, and authority. They tend to be self-critical, expecting themselves to be
+ perfect,  and to be equally critical of others, whether overtly or covertly. They tend to be controlling, oppositional, and self-righteous or
+moralistic. They are prone to being stingy and withholding (e.g., of time, money, affection). They are often conflicted about authority, struggling
+with contradictory impulses to submit versus defy.
+
+Hysteric-Histrionic or Histrionic:
+Individuals who match this prototype are emotionally dramatic and prone to express emotion in exaggerated and theatrical ways. Their reactions
+tend to be based on emotion rather than reflection, and their cognitive style tends to be glib, global, and impressionistic (e.g., missing
+details, glossing over inconsistencies, mispronouncing names). Their beliefs and expectations seem cliché or stereotypical, as if taken
+from storybooks or movies, and they seem naïve or innocent, seeming to know less about the ways of the world than would be expected.
+Individuals who match this prototype tend to be sexually seductive or provocative. They use their physical attractiveness to an excessive
+degree to gain attention and notice, and they behave in ways that seem to epitomize gender stereotypes. They may be flirtatious, preoccupied
+with sexual conquest, prone to lead people on, or promiscuous. They tend to become involved in romantic or sexual  triangles  and
+may be drawn to people who are already attached or sought by someone else. They appear to have difficulty directing both tender feelings
+and sexual feelings toward the same person, tending to view others as either virtuous or sexy, but not both. Individuals who match this prototype
+tend to be suggestible or easily influenced, and to idealize and identify with admired others to the point of taking on their attitudes
+or mannerisms. They fantasize about ideal, perfect love, yet tend to choose sexual or romantic partners who are emotionally unavailable, or
+who seem inappropriate (e.g., in terms of age or social or economic status). They may become attached quickly and intensely. Beneath the
+surface, they often fear being alone, rejected, or abandoned.
+
+These personalities mentioned here are also congruent and appear in the PDM-2 and the DSM-5.

tasks/Attachments_task.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+Task:
+
+Your are a helpful psychologist or psychiatrist.
+
+For each of the four attachment styles mentioned here (Secured, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissive-Avoidant, Fearful-Avoidant) - classify the text for each speaker separately (Speaker 1 or Speaker 2...) to the attachment style the text fit best. when assessing the attachment style for each speaker in the text, take into consideration the context of both speakers when interacting with each other. Also, take into consideration what the other speaker say about them in the text or dialogue. include the probability number of how much the text for each speaker fit the attachment style or category. the sum of all four probabilities must equal to 1.
+
+Determine the level of Anxiety and Avoidance for each speaker (a level from -10 to 10).
+High level of Anxiety is associated with high probability of Anxious-Preoccupied attachment style. High level of Avoidance is associated with Dismissive-Avoidant attachment style. Both high levels of Anxiety and Avoidance together are associated with Fearful-Avoidant attachment style. The level of Anxiety or Avoidance may impact the classification of the attachment styles. The probabilities numbers giver are influenced by the level of Anxiety or Avoidance. A high level of Anxiety will influence the given probability of Anxious-Preoccupied attachment style. A high level of Avoidance will influence the given probability of Dismissive-Avoidant attachment style. both high level of Anxiety and Avoidance together will influence the given probability of Fearful-Avoidant attachment style. Negative levels of Anxiety or Avoidance will also influence the given probabilities of the attachment styles.
+
+Get the Sentiment level (which is a number from -1 to 1) of the text of each speaker. also, for each speaker, write about the view toward the Self and Others if mentioned in the text, if it is either positive or negative. also get the Emotionality level or intensity of the text, a number from 0 to 10 when 10 means very emotional and 0 means not emotional.
+
+Explain why the selected attachment style or category with the highest probability number best fit the text. there is no need to give an introduction of the attachment styles.
+
+Write or quote the sentences from the text that best exemplified the attachment style with the highest probability.
+
+The listing of the results for each speaker must look exactly like this format (the sum of the four probabilities must equal to 1. for example - 0.15 + 0.4 + 0.25 + 0.2 = 1):
+
+Speaker: 1 for example
+Secured: probability number from 0 to 1
+Anxious-Preoccupied: probability number  from 0 to 1
+Dismissive-Avoidant: probability number from 0 to 1
+Fearful-Avoidant: probability number from 0 to 1
+Sentiment: a number from -1 to 1
+Emotionality: a number from 0 to 10
+Self: a number from -10 to 10 | Others: a number from -10 to 10
+Anxiety: a number from -10 to 10
+Avoidance: a number from -10 to 10
+Explanation: explanation
+Sentence: sentences
+
+If more than a single speaker appear in the text - write the listings of the results for each of them separately. if a speaker does not appear in the text dont include it or give explanation to it. for example, if speaker 1 does not appear in the text - dont give an explanation and dont include the data for this speaker.
+
+In the analysis for the text or dialogue, please include only the two most frequent speakers, that is, get the results only for the two most frequent speakers in the text or dialogue.
+
+If there are no speakers (Speaker 1 or Speaker 8 or a | symbol for example) found in the text, treat it as a text not as a dialogue and the output format must not contain data per speaker since there are no speakers, only a single one.

tasks/BigFive_task.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+According to the Big Five taxonomy (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness) - classify the text for each speaker separately (Speaker 1 or Speaker 2...) to the personality traits the text fit best. when assessing the personality trait for each speaker in the text, take into considaration the context of both speakers when interacting with each other. include the rating number of how much the text for each speaker fit the personality trait. a high rating means high in this trait. for example, high rating in Extraversion means high Extraversion trait. very negative rating in Extraversion means high in Introversion. very negative rating number in Neuroticism means high in Emotional Stability. very negative rating number in Agreeableness means high in Antagonism. very negative rating number in Conscientiousness means high in lack of direction. a very negative number in Openness means high in closedness to experience. also include the sentiment level from -1 to 1.
+
+Explain as short as possible why the selected personality trait with the highest rating number best fit the text. there is no need to give an introduction of the personality traits.
+
+
+The listing of the results for each speaker must look exacly like this format (high number means high in trait, while negative number means the opposite trait or very low in this trait):
+
+Speaker: 1 for example
+Extraversion: a rating number from -10 to 10 (-10 means very high in Introversion, 10 means very high in Exraversion)
+Agreeableness: a rating number from -10 to 10 (-10 means very high in Antagonism, 10 means very high in Agreeableness)
+Conscientiousness: a rating number from -10 to 10 (-10 means very high in lack of direction, 10 means very high in Conscientiousness)
+Neuroticism: a rating number from -10 to 10 (-10 means very high in Emotional Stability, 10 means very high in Neuroticism)
+Openness: a rating number from -10 to 10 (-10 means very high in closedness to experience, 10 means very high in Openness)
+Sentiment: a number from -1 to 1
+Explanation: explanation
+
+if more than a single speaker appear in the text - write the listings of the results for each of them separately. if a speaker does not appear in the text dont include it or give explanation to it. for example, if speaker 1 does not appear in the text - dont give an explanation and dont include the data for this speaker.
+
+If there are no speakers (Speaker 1 or Speaker 8 for example) in the text, treat it as a text not as a dialogue.

tasks/Personalities_task.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+According to the article provided here - An Empirically Derived Taxonomy for Personality Diagnosis: Bridging Science and Practice in Conceptualizing Personality written by Drew Westen, Jonathan Shedler, Bekh Bradley, and Jared A. DeFife - classify the text provided to the following personality disorders mentioned in the article: Depressed, Paranoid, Schizoid-Schizotypal, Antisocial-Psychopathic, Borderline-Dysregulated, Narcissistic, Anxious-Avoidant, Dependent-Victimized, Obsessional, Hysteric-Histrionic - classify the text for each speaker separately (Speaker 1 or Speaker 2...) to the disorder the text fit best. remember, only give classification to a speaker that is currently is the main subject of the explanation. for example, if the explanation is mainly talking about speaker 1, give the classification only to speaker 1, and not for 2 etc.
+
+When assessing the disorder for each speaker in the text, take into consideration the context of both speakers when interacting with each other. include the rating numbers from 0 to 4 of how much the text for each speaker fit the personality disorders. also get the sentiment level that is a number from -1 to 1. also get the Emotionality level or intensity of the text, a number from 0 to 10 when 10 means very emotional and 0 means not emotional. there is no need to give an introduction of the personality types or disorders. Also give the level of depression the text express (from -1 to 1, while 1 means high depression and 0 no depression or the speaker does is not depressed at all or absence of any negative emotions. -1 means happiness or high mental wellness or positive mental health).
+
+Write or quote the sentences from the text that best exemplified the personality disorders with the highest rating.
+
+Ratings:
+For each diagnosis, please form an overall impression of the type of person described, then rate the extent to
+which your patient matches or resembles the prototype or personality disorder:
+4 - Very good match (patient exemplifies this disorder; prototypical case)
+3 - Good match (patient has this disorder; diagnosis applies)
+2 - Moderate match (patient has significant features of this disorder)
+1 - Slight match (patient has minor features of this disorder)
+0 - No match (description does not apply)
+
+The listing of the results for each speaker must look like this format:
+
+Speaker: 1 for example
+Depressed: rating from 0 to 4
+Paranoid: rating number from 0 to 4
+Schizoid-Schizotypal: rating number from 0 to 4
+Antisocial-Psychopathic: rating number from 0 to 4
+Borderline-Dysregulated: rating number from 0 to 4
+Hysteric-Histrionic: rating number from 0 to 4
+Narcissistic: rating number from 0 to 4
+Anxious-Avoidant: rating number from 0 to 4
+Dependent-Victimized: rating number from 0 to 4
+Obsessional: rating number from 0 to 4
+Sentiment: a number from -1 to 1
+Emotionality: a number from 0 to 10
+Depression: a number from -1 to 1
+Explanation: explanation
+Sentence: sentences
+
+
+If more than a single speaker appear in the text - write the listings of the results for each of them separately. if a speaker does not appear in the text dont include it or give explanation to it. for example, if speaker 1 does not appear in the text - dont give an explanation and dont include the data for this speaker.
+
+In the analysis for the text or dialogue, please include only the two most frequent speakers, that is, get the results only for the two most frequent speakers in the text or dialogue.
+
+If there are no speakers (Speaker 1 or Speaker 8 for example) in the text, treat it as a text not as a dialogue.
+
+

tasks/general_task.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+The input text describes different speakers in different situations at different points of time. first describe or summarize who the speakers are based on the dialogues. give a general opinion on each speaker personality from a psychological or psychiatric point of view from the dialogues or things they say and their dominant emotional state. also describe or predict what it is like to meet and interact with such a person.