Dyadic Empathy, Dyadic Coping, and Relationship Satisfaction: A Dyadic Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to investigate a theoretical model specifying the direct and indirect associations between dyadic empathy, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction in a sample of 187 heterosexual couples. Dyadic and structural aspects of mediation were tested using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Results revealed that greater levels of an individual’s own propensity for dyadic empathy (i.e., one’s ability to experience empathic concern and perspective-taking) significantly predicted greater levels of an individual’s own dyadic coping strategies among both male and female participants. Moreover, increased levels of an individual’s own dyadic coping strategies significantly predicted a similar greater degree of an individual’s own relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, results also provide support for the possible mediating role that an individual’s own dyadic coping strategies may hold in explaining the links between an individual’s own empathic concern and an individual’s own relationship satisfaction among male participants. With regard to the dyadic components of the study’s model, findings indicated that perspective-taking among males significantly improve their female partners’ propensity to employ positive dyadic coping strategies. Moreover, empathic concern among female participants was found to improve their male partners’ dyadic coping strategies. Findings suggest the potential utility of examining dyadic coping as a means to expand clinical and empirical insights regarding the links between dyadic empathy and relationship satisfaction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".