Perceived and reported romantic and sexual outcomes in long-distance and geographically close relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More and more young people are in long-distance relationships (LDRs). However, little is known about perceived or reported outcomes of LDRs compared to geographically close relationships (GCRs). This investigation compared the relationship outcomes (Study 1) and perceived outcomes (Study 2) of individuals in LDRs and GCRs. In Study 1, young adults in LDRs (n=232) and GCRs (n=263) completed an online survey assessing relationship and sexual outcomes (romantic satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, extradyadic sexual activity); individuals in LDRs also rated the positive and negative impacts of being in an LDR. Individuals in LDRs and GCRs had similar satisfaction, a similar likelihood of engaging in extradyadic sexual activity, and perceived the impact of being in an LDR as more positive than negative. In Study 2, young adults (N=626) recruited online were randomly assigned to rate the same outcomes for a hypothetical couple in an LDR or GCR. Observers perceived being in an LDR as having a more negative than positive impact on the sexual relationship. However, satisfaction ratings for both LDRs and GCRs were high although individuals in LDRs were perceived as having significantly lower satisfaction than reported in Study 1. Few gender differences emerged, and perceptions were not affected by participants' past experience being in an LDR. Overall, the results suggest that outcomes for LDRs and GCRs are similar and that people have generally positive perceptions of LDRs. These results have positive implications for young adults, given the popularity of LDRs in this age group.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".