Valuing Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has suggested that individuals lower in self-esteem restrain from fully valuing romantic relationships because of relatively low confidence in positive regard from their partners (i.e., positive reflected appraisals). MacDonald and Jessica (2006) provided evidence that in Indonesia, where family plays an important role in mate selection, low self-esteem also leads to doubts regarding family approval of the relationship that, in turn, places an additional constraint on fully valuing a romantic relationship. In the current research, Study 1 replicated these findings, showing that the positive relationship between self-esteem and value placed on a romantic relationship was mediated by both reflected appraisals and approval from a partner’s family in Indonesia but only reflected appraisals in Canada. In Study 2, the relationship between self-esteem and relationship value was mediated by reflected appraisals and approval from own, but not partner’s, family in Japan whereas only reflected appraisals played a mediating role in Australia. These data suggest that in cultures involving family in mate selection, placing full value on romantic relationships may be contingent on confidence in both reflected appraisals and family approval of the relationship.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.019 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".