How Do I See You Relative to Myself? Relationship Quality as a Predictor of Self- and Partner-Enhancement Within Cross-Sex Friendships, Dating Relationships, and Marriages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals tend to rate themselves more positively than strangers or acquaintances--a self-enhancement effect. But such self-enhancement is potentially detrimental to one's intimate relationships. We hypothesized that higher relationship quality would predict (1) partner-enhancement (i.e., rating the partner more positively than the self) and (2) higher feelings of being understood and validated (FUV). In addition, (3) partner-enhancement would add to relationship quality's prediction of FUV. These hypotheses were tested among cross-sex friendships (N=92) and dating relationships (N=90) in University students and in a married, non-University sample (N=94). All hypotheses were supported in romantic relationships. For cross-sex friendships, regardless of relationship quality, individuals partner-enhanced on the negative traits but neither self- nor partner-enhanced on the positive traits. Finally, relationship quality predicted partner-perceptions more strongly than selfperceptions.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".