Emotional and Physical Satisfaction in Noncohabiting, Cohabiting, and Marital Relationships: The Importance of Jealous Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines whether associations between marital status and emotional and physical satisfaction depend on jealous conflict associated with expectations about sexual exclusivity. Using data from a representative sample of 681 women and men drawn from the city of Chicago and its inner suburbs, this study estimated logistic regression models of jealous conflict and ordered logistic regression models of adults' reported emotional and physical satisfaction of their relationships. The results show that marriages are less exposed to jealous conflict than cohabiting and noncohabiting relationships. Regarding emotional and physical satisfaction, their associations with marital status were contingent upon whether individuals reported jealous conflict in their relationships. Specifically, in relationships without jealous conflict, married couples were more emotionally satisfied than noncohabiting couples. Married couples, but not cohabiting and noncohabiting couples, had significantly lower emotional and physical satisfaction when jealous conflict occurred. Cohabitors were not less emotionally or physically satisfied than married respondents. Overall, this research supports the argument that sexual exclusivity expectations are important for understanding the link between marital status and relationship quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".