Ask and you might receive: The actor–partner interdependence model approach to estimating cultural and gender variations in social support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As an essential part of close relationships, social support is a dynamic interactive process. This paper aims to simultaneously investigate social support‐seeking and provision behaviours using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). Ninety‐two friendship dyads participated in this study. Supportive versus negative friendship qualities were used to predict different support‐seeking and support‐provision behaviours during an experimental task. Cultural and gender variations were also examined. Results showed that self‐reported friendship qualities influence support‐seeking and provision behaviours intrapersonally and interpersonally. Female participants were more likely to provide emotion‐focused support than were male participants. After accounting for friendship qualities in the dyads, there was no evidence of cultural group differences on support‐seeking or provision behaviours among same‐sex friends. These results demonstrate the conceptual and empirical advantages of using APIM to unpack cultural and gender variations in social support processes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".