Partner dissimilarity in life satisfaction: Stability and change, correlates, and outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dissimilarities between partners in prominent domains of functioning are often thought to be a risk factor for compromised relationship quality and relationship dissolution. However, the nature, correlates, and consequences of developmental trajectories of within-couple dissimilarities in key quality-of-life indicators such as life satisfaction are not well understood. In the current study, we applied multilevel growth models to up to 31-wave annual longitudinal data from 13,714 romantic partners in the German Socio-Economic Panel (age at baseline: M = 43 years, SD = 15, range 17-92 years). Partner dissimilarity was calculated at the within-couple level and indicated considerable differences in life satisfaction between partners within a given couple (0.64 SD or 1.14 units on an 11-point scale). Over time, partner dissimilarity slightly increased among partners who remained together. Examining individual and relationship correlates indicated that dissimilarity was greatest for couples who were older, had children, or had a shorter relationship history. Also, dissimilarity was greater when individual life satisfaction or satisfaction with family life was low, particularly among wives, as well as among couples who later separated. Examining consequences, larger levels of and increases in partner dissimilarity were independently predictive of lower satisfaction with family life at the end of the study, over and above individual life satisfaction of either partner as well as key individual and relationship correlates. Our discussion focuses on the advantages of investigating (developmental trajectories of) within-couple dissimilarity and its implications for individual and partner development. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".