Gender and personality differences in conceptions of love: An interpersonal theory analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three studies tested predictions derived from interpersonal theory regarding the relations among gender, personality, and conceptions of love. It was predicted that women would conceptualize love in terms of its nurturant varieties, namely companionate kinds of love, whereas men would conceptualize love in terms of non‐nurturant varieties, namely passionate kinds of love. Only the latter prediction received consistent support. Both women and men held a companionate conception of love, with the exception that women assigned higher ratings to friendship love and sisterly love. Regarding personality, it was predicted that high‐nurturance traits (e.g., warm‐agreeable) would be associated with a companionate conception of love whereas low‐nurturance traits (e.g., cold‐hearted) would be associated with a passionate conception of love. Results supported predictions. It was concluded that women's and men's conceptions of love are more similar than has been assumed and that the two robust interpersonal dimensions of dominance and nurturance hold considerable promise for integrating the literature on personality and gender differences in love.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".