The predictive effects of fear of being single on physical attractiveness and less selective partner selection strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fear of being single (FOBS) tends to predict settling for less when seeking a romantic partner. The present research sought to examine whether this is due, at least in part, to lower physical attractiveness among those who fear being single. In a photo-rating study (Study 1, N = 122) and a speed-dating study (Study 2, N = 171), participants completed the FOBS Scale, rated perceptions of their own physical attractiveness, and were then rated on physical attractiveness by a team of raters. In Studies 1 and 2, FOBS was not significantly associated with judge-rated physical attractiveness as a bivariate association or in hierarchical regressions accounting for anxious and avoidant attachments, gender, and smiling. There were mixed findings in both studies regarding the association between FOBS and self-rated physical attractiveness in bivariate versus multivariate analyses. However, the tendency of those with stronger FOBS to be less selective during speed dating was not explained by either their judge-rated or their self-rated physical attractiveness.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".