Intimacy and Couple Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Romantic Attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study extends findings regarding the established relation between intimacy (emotional and sexual)and couple satisfaction by investigating dyadic processes of intimacy (actor and partner effects) and themoderating role of gender and insecure romantic attachment on this relation. Using a sample of 117 heterosexualcouples, results analyzed through an Actor-Partner-Interdependence Model revealed that only actor and partneremotional intimacy were significantly and positively related with actor couple satisfaction when examinedsimultaneously with sexual intimacy; stronger effects were revealed for actor versus partner emotional intimacy.Actor avoidant attachment was also found to moderate the aforementioned association, such that a decreasedpositive relation was demonstrated between actor emotional intimacy and actor couple satisfaction. Thus, resultssuggest that emotional intimacy may play a less important role in the attainment of satisfactory couplerelationships amongst individuals exhibiting higher attachment avoidance. The myriad of additional practical andclinical implications of findings are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".