Is It Adaptive for People With Personality Problems to Know How Their Romantic Partner Perceives Them? The Effect of Meta-accuracy on Romantic Relationship Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with personality disorder (PD) symptoms tend to report and have partners who report lower quality relationships with them. Using a large community sample of romantic couples, the current research tested whether the established link between PD symptoms and partner-reported relationship quality was attenuated by meta-accuracy (insight into the impression one makes) as well as whether the link between PD symptoms and self-reported relationship quality was attenuated by positivity (assuming one makes a desirable impression). Results suggested that meta-accuracy for core personality traits moderated the link between PD symptoms and partner-reported relationship quality, such that high meta-accuracy attenuated whereas low meta-accuracy exacerbated the negative association between PD symptoms and quality. However, individuals with symptoms did not necessarily reap the same relational benefits of their meta-accuracy, and positivity did not moderate the link between their symptoms and relationship quality. Implications for assessment and whether meta-accuracy should be improved are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".