Family matters, but sometimes chosen family matters more: Perceived social network influence in the dating decisions of same- and mixed-sex couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although social support for relationships is a commonly studied topic, the literature is divided upon whether social support from parents versus friends plays a more important role in predicting relational and health outcomes. Using a sample (N=698) of heterosexual and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) participants, the current study examined differences in past experiences of relationship disapproval from friends and family, as well as self-reported levels of importance assigned to various sources of social approval for relationships. In addition, participants read hypothetical scenarios in which they were told that their parents, heterosexual friends or LGBTQ friends disapproved of their current dating partner and suggested that they end the relationship. Participants responded by indicating whether or not they would end the hypothetical relationship based on the disapproval. Results indicate that individuals in same-sex relationships often perceive less social support for their relationships from parents than friends, that they place more value on relationship approval from friends, or chosen family, and that they are less likely to end a relationship based on parental disapproval, compared to those in mixed-sex relationships. A ‘currency’ model of parental disapproval for relationships is introduced, whereby parents are seen to have a finite amount of ‘relationship disapproval currency’ available to spend on an adult child's relationships. Inaccurately disapproving of their children's relationships is shown to reduce the likelihood of children considering their parents' opinions, while accurately disapproving of relationships significantly increases the likelihood of their adult children considering their opinions in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".