Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: A test of the attraction-similarity hypothesis
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
The attraction-similarity hypothesis predicts that in ongoing relationships projection of the self onto the other person is the result of the attraction (e.g., satisfaction, liking, loving) between the two individuals. That is, attraction (i.e., satisfaction) leads to perceptions of similarity. Two studies tested this hypothesis in same-sex friendships. Study 1 correlated individuals’ satisfaction with an ongoing friendship with perceptions of similarity on traits and behaviors. Study 2 used a priming method to manipulate satisfaction in an ongoing friendship and then tested for perceptions of similarity. Consistent with the attraction-similarity hypothesis, the more satisfied individuals were with their friendships the more similar they perceived their friends to be to themselves. These perceptions of similarity were not predicted by the duration or closeness of the friendship. Finally, perceptions of similarity were made in a self-serving fashion. The implications for close relationships 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it