Family Divorce and Romantic Relationships in Early Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research has indicated that family experiences, including parental divorce, family conflict, and parental monitoring, play an important role in adolescent relationships (e.g., Mahl, 2001 Mahl, D. 2001. The influence of parental divorce on the romantic relationship beliefs of young adults. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 34: 89–118. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]). Research on how these family experiences affect romantic relationships during early adolescence is lacking. Because pubertal maturation has been linked with earlier dating, it is also important to consider its role when studying adolescent relationships. This study compared 1,765 young adolescents (grades 5–8) from intact (n = 1,315) and divorced (n = 379) families on their dating patterns, susceptibility to romantic influence, and romantic relationship quality. The findings show that adolescents from divorced families, compared to adolescents from intact families, report more dating, report more susceptibility to romantic influence, and do not differ in their romantic relationship quality. In line with the hypotheses, both family conflict and puberty mediated the relationship between family structure and dating stage, as well as family structure and susceptibility to romantic influence. Parental monitoring, however, did not mediate between family structure and the romantic relationship variables. Finally, differences, regardless of family structure, were found between males and females, where males indicated being at a higher dating stage than females.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".