The attraction–similarity model and dating couples: Projection, perceived similarity, and psychological benefits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the attraction–similarity model, relationship quality leads to perceptions of partner–self similarity. Relationship quality and perceived similarity then provide psychological benefits for the perceiver. Across 3 studies, relationship quality positively predicted perceptions of similarity. Study 1 indicated that for moderate, but not low, relationship‐relevant traits, individuals projected the self onto the dating partner as a way of perceiving similarities. In Study 2, priming high, as opposed to low, relationship quality led to greater perceived similarity on the moderately relevant traits. Study 3 indicated greater perceived similarity between self and dating partner than between self and average same‐gender student on the moderately relevant traits. Relationship quality and perceived similarity with the dating partner on the moderately relevant traits also predicted psychological benefits.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it