Development of Immigrant Couple Relations in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: This study investigates whether relationship satisfaction, conflict frequency, and self‐disclosure follow distinct developmental trajectories for immigrant couples when compared with native‐born couples and explores the factors that explain developmental diversity for immigrant couples. Background: Despite nearly a quarter of a billion people worldwide living in a country other than their birth country, no longitudinal research has examined immigrant couple intimate relations. Stress‐focused theoretical perspectives provide motivation for the current study. Method: Five annual waves of survey data from the German Family Panel (pairfam) study were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to select a sample of immigrant ( n = 614) and native‐born ( n = 2,097) couples matched on a number of potentially confounding demographic (e.g., marital status) and values‐based (e.g., traditional gender‐role attitudes) variables. Results: Latent growth curve analyses revealed few differences between immigrant and native‐born couple trajectories and, where differences arose, the trajectories converged by Wave 5. Within immigrant couples, having both partners as immigrants emerged as a protective factor, whereas citizenship status in the receiving country and length of time since immigrating were not consistently associated with the relationship outcomes. Associations among couple supportiveness, traditional gender roles, and Big Five personality variables with the immigrant couple trajectories were consistent with findings in the relationship science literature. Conclusion: Although being an immigrant entails navigating additional challenges in daily life as a result of one's minority status, these results bear testament to the remarkable resilience of immigrant couples.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".