Linking partner emotional support, partner negative interaction, and trauma with psychological distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While research evidence has consistently demonstrated the link between social relationships and psychological distress, there is debate over the strength of perceived emotional support compared with perceived negative interaction on psychological distress and whether the relation between social relationships and psychological distress is direct or moderating. In this study, we examined the relation between partner emotional support, partner negative interaction, and trauma on psychological distress. Our sample of married or romantically partnered people was drawn from a nationally representative U.S. data set ( N = 5,383). The direct effects of romantic partner emotional support and romantic partner negative interaction on psychological distress were evaluated and compared. Further, we evaluated the moderating effects of partner emotional support and partner negative interaction on the relation between trauma history and psychological distress. Hierarchical regression models revealed that (a) people exposed to trauma experienced greater psychological distress, (b) partner emotional support was linked with reduced distress, (c) partner negative interaction was linked with increased distress, (d) partner negative interaction accounted for more variance in psychological distress compared with partner emotional support, and (e) neither partner emotional support nor partner negative interaction moderated the relation between trauma and distress. These findings indicate that partner negative interaction has a stronger relation with psychological distress than partner emotional support. Further, they support the direct effects of social relationships on psychological distress over the moderating effects.
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) | 0.001 | 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".