How Love Emerges in Arranged Marriages: Two Cross-cultural Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies (N = 52) examined how love emerged in arranged marriages involving participants from 12 different countries of origin and 6 different religions. The first study (n = 30), mainly qualitative in design, found that selfreported love grew from a mean of 3.9 to 8.5 on a 10-point scale. A number of factors were identified that appeared to contribute to the growth of love, the most important of which was commitment. In the second study (n = 22), mainly quantitative in design, 36 factors that might contribute to the growth of love were assessed, with participants indicating on a 13-point scale (from -6 to +6) whether each factor made their love grow weaker or stronger. Love grew from a mean of 5.1 to 9.2, and sacrifice and commitment emerged as the most powerful factors in strengthening love. These and other factors appear to work because they make people feel vulnerable in each other’s presence, a hypothesis that is consistent with a growing body of laboratory research. The fact that love can grow in some arranged marriages—and that this process can apparently be analyzed and understood scientifically—raises the possibility that practices that are used to strengthen love in arranged marriages could be introduced into autonomous marriages in Western cultures, where love normally weakens over time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".