The roles of truth, projection, and directional bias in predicting individuals’ perceptions of partners’ satisfaction with individuals’ bodies and implications for sexual satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who perceive that their partner is satisfied with individuals’ bodies are more sexually satisfied than those who perceive that their partner is dissatisfied. Using the truth and bias model of judgment, we investigated whether perceptions were based on (a) truth (partners’ actual satisfaction with individuals’ bodies), (b) projection (individuals’ own body satisfaction), and (c) directional bias (unmeasured sources of bias that influence perceptions; e.g., sociocultural ideals). We hypothesized that truth and projection would independently contribute to individuals’ perceptions of partners’ satisfaction with individuals’ bodies and that individuals would underestimate partners’ satisfaction with individuals’ bodies (negative directional bias). We also hypothesized that individuals’ perceptions of partners’ satisfaction would positively predict both partners’ sexual satisfaction. We investigated these hypotheses in a one-year longitudinal study of 123 mixed-sex cohabiting couples. Individuals’ perceptions of partners’ satisfaction with individuals’ bodies were predicted by truth and projection, which suggests that individuals accurately track and incorporate partners’ satisfaction with individuals’ bodies into their perceptions, but also that individuals project their satisfaction with their body onto partners. Contrary to our expectations, individuals overestimated partners’ satisfaction with individuals’ bodies (positive directional bias). Partially supporting our hypotheses, individuals’ perceptions of partners’ satisfaction with individuals’ bodies positively predicted individuals’ but not partners’ sexual satisfaction over one year. These results suggest that truth and projection independently contribute to perceptions of partners’ satisfaction with individuals’ bodies and that positive perceptions may contribute to individuals’ sexual satisfaction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".